Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vick Finds Jesus
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 50 (418814)
08-30-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
08-30-2007 9:18 AM


Re: What in the world was that boy thinking?
There was nothing divine about the love her family has for each other and for that man; nothing divine in the least about the strength they found in themselves and each other from that love.
How do you know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2007 9:18 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2007 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 50 (418820)
08-30-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
08-30-2007 12:24 PM


Re: What in the world was that boy thinking?
How do you know that?
Aside from the fact that there is nothing divine?
Nobody was talking about God except the people who weren't in the family. The hospice nurse quoted the Bible liberally, friends of the family tried to tell his wife that "he was in heaven", etc.
But nobody who actually was in the family - who represented the core of strength and support I saw that week - mentioned God at all, to my recollection. They're largely Methodist, my wife and I are the only atheists, but still it was abundantly obvious that the love they felt came from themselves, from the strength of their characters.
It was certainly entirely consistent with my previous experience of those individuals, who have welcomed me into their family at every turn. It was abundantly obvious that they had no need of divine help to be loving human beings; their own natures were more than sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2007 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2007 1:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 50 (418826)
08-30-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
08-30-2007 12:48 PM


How do you know that?
Aside from the fact that there is nothing divine?
Heh, well, you can't know that either.
But yeah.
But nobody who actually was in the family - who represented the core of strength and support I saw that week - mentioned God at all, to my recollection.
Right on. But still, it isn't evidence for the lack of god's involvement.
It was abundantly obvious that they had no need of divine help to be loving human beings; their own natures were more than sufficient.
Cool, thanks for the explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2007 12:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2007 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 50 (418830)
08-30-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
08-30-2007 1:09 PM


Right on. But still, it isn't evidence for the lack of god's involvement.
That's what I find so insulting, though.
A man is laying there dying of congestive heart failure after the strain of taking care of his ill wife - literally, he loved her to death - and God's involvement is, what, exactly?
A family having love for each other? They had that already, in part because of a man who lived a life of putting others ahead of himself and asking for nothing in return.
It's not at all clear to me what you think wouldn't have happened if God, in fact, had not been involved. What would have been different?
If God wanted to get involved - how about doing something about the whole death and pain of loss? Because even among the people who believed in Jesus dying for our sins and a heaven we'll all eventually arrive in, the pain was acute. For many of the rest of us, there's just not any evidence at all that the Jesus thing is true, so we really can't believe in it.
People think I'm angry at God when I talk this way, and I'm not. I can't be angry at something that doesn't even exist. But if there is a God, and this is the best he can do, a lot more of you theists should be angry. That you're not is just part of the whole scam. Believing in God is like being abused by your boyfriend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2007 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2007 1:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 50 (418833)
08-30-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
08-30-2007 1:35 PM


A man is laying there dying of congestive heart failure after the strain of taking care of his ill wife - literally, he loved her to death - and God's involvement is, what, exactly?
I don't really know but in that situation, I would say "Not much".
I was thinking on a deeper level in that God is responsible for bringing Love to our world in the first place. In a way, he'd be involved in all love.
It's not at all clear to me what you think wouldn't have happened if God, in fact, had not been involved. What would have been different?
Probably nothing.
If God wanted to get involved - how about doing something about the whole death and pain of loss?
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
LOL just kidding.
I don't know why god does things the way he does, if he's even actually doing anything. He might just be letting nature run its course.
So, he takes a bunch of apes and gives them a greater consciousness and the capacity to love, then lets them go and lets nature run its course.
What you said in Message 30 was:
There was nothing divine about the love her family has for each other and for that man; nothing divine in the least about the strength they found in themselves and each other from that love.
bold added
There very well could be divinity in that love and there's no way for you to know that there isn't. Sure, you can assume there's not, but you can't say so matter of factly that its not there and not even in the least.
Saying that if there was then god should do this or why doesn't he do that are questions that can't be answered.
P.S. Have you tried Battlefield 2142? Are you into FPS's? Its pretty kick-ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2007 1:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2007 2:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 50 (418834)
08-30-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
08-30-2007 1:52 PM


There very well could be divinity in that love and there's no way for you to know that there isn't. Sure, you can assume there's not, but you can't say so matter of factly that its not there and not even in the least.
I don't know what to tell you. I was there in the room. There was no divine presence, and all talk of God this and Jesus that fell flat.
There was just the best of humanity. People doing what people do. And they needed nothing of God to do it.
P.S. Have you tried Battlefield 2142? Are you into FPS's? Its pretty kick-ass.
Yeah, it was fun. Oh man, though, but the loading times!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2007 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 37 of 50 (418846)
08-30-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hyroglyphx
08-28-2007 11:00 PM


Re: What in the world was that boy thinking?
n_j writes:
Boy?
What's wrong with saying that??? If it was a female and I said, what in the world was that girl thinking, would you be as incredulous?
Only slightly less incredulous--both when applied to adults are belittling reflections of bigoted thought. The customary term for an adult male is man; the customary term for an adult woman is woman. You didn't say guy, or dude or fellow, after all.
I see two options: one, you truly are so racially insensitive and historically ignorant that calling an adult black male boy was a naive act; two, you are not that ignorant, and while it was not a conscious act of bigotry, as you say, it did reflect an unthinking bias.
I've scrolled back through a lot of your posts. I couldn't find any examples of you calling an adult white man, boy. You see?
Omni, reserve the soapbox for what we're actually dealing with.
Referring to "that Bush boy" was a relevant example. I thought you might find the notion of calling the President boy as jarring as African Americans find obnoxious the same term applied to adult men.
Can I assume that you are defending Vick or are you merely questioning the integrity of the prosecution?
No, I am not defending Vick. His behavior was despicable.
But dogfighting has been an underground sport in the south for a long, long time. I doubt very much that we could find an example of a white man being so raked over the coals on the same charges.
While African Americans dominate many professional sports, the position of quarterback (like manager in baseball and, until recently, coach in basketball) is still reserved almost entirely for white athletes.
I think the overwhelming reaction from the public and the prosecution alike stems from a sense of outrage at this behavior by a black man who has been so favored. That notion itself is racist: it's the "I'm don't want to sound like a racist, but he should be more careful about fulfilling his people's sterotypes" type of bigotry writ societally large.
His prosecution and public condemnation should have proceeded like those of any other person convicted of the same crime. That's not what I see.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-28-2007 11:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 6:23 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2007 10:26 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 38 of 50 (418851)
08-30-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
08-30-2007 5:49 PM


Not a racist thing (and drop the "boy" discussion)
I think the overwhelming reaction from the public and the prosecution alike stems from a sense of outrage at this behavior by a black man who has been so favored.
I think that there would have been such a reaction to such behavior by any well known public figure, regardless of race etc.
The way to disprove that would be to find a prominent white man who committed such a crime without getting such a reaction.
And let's drop the whole "boy" part of the discussion. Nemesis_juggernaut has explained and apologized for the phrase upthread. There is nothing else he can say on the matter.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 5:49 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 6:44 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 39 of 50 (418853)
08-30-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Minnemooseus
08-30-2007 6:23 PM


Re: Not a racist thing (and drop the "boy" discussion)
I think that there would have been such a reaction to such behavior by any well known public figure, regardless of race etc.
I think you are wrong.
The way to disprove that would be to find a prominent white man who committed such a crime without getting such a reaction.
The way to prove different treatment for blacks v. whites accused of similar crimes is to look at the historical record: it is stark and clear. The notion that only finding an exact parallel in terms of prominence and wealth--but white--would disprove your notion that America suddenly became race blind is absurd. Indeed, the presence of prominence and wealth is statistically associated with better outcomes for the accused.
And let's drop the whole "boy" part of the discussion. Nemesis_juggernaut has explained and apologized for the phrase upthread. There is nothing else he can say on the matter.
n_j used classic racist speech; I called him on it; he replied, and I responded. I'm glad to hear he apologized, but that wasn't in any reply to me--I responded to what he had to say directly to my objection. You have a problem with that?
Do you mean to instruct us to no longer address the racial aspect of this controversy? Why?
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 6:23 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-30-2007 7:10 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2007 9:08 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 50 (418855)
08-30-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Omnivorous
08-30-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Not a racist thing (and drop the "boy" discussion)
Omnivorous writes:
...but that wasn't in any reply to me...
I think it is reasonable to ask and expect people to read more than just the posts that the other person responded directly to you. It helps to think of this forum as a social setting where there are more than 2 people talking to each other. Person A might say something while looking at person B, but persons C and D would naturally assume that person A was also saying it out loud for C and D to hear. So, in later part of the conversation, person A doesn't have to repeat himself 3 times everytime he wants to make a point. He could just say it once for persons B, C, and D even though he was looking at person B when he was saying it.
I responded to what he had to say directly to my objection. You have a problem with that?
I don't know about moose, but I do have a problem with that. When I talk or debate with someone, I don't just use information that was put forward directly to me. Here is a little script to demonstrate how silly it is for you to not expect you to assimilate posts that were not directly addressed to you.
Person A to person B: I am a christian.
Person C to person A: You never told me what religion you belong to, so I'm going to assume you're a buddhist.
Person A to person C: But I just told B I was a christian.
Person C to person A: But you didn't look at me when you said it, so I just blanked it out.
See how silly that seems? I would hate to have to repeat something 4 thousand times everytime I have a point to make just because there are 4 thousand active members on this forum.
Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 6:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 7:19 PM Taz has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 41 of 50 (418856)
08-30-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
08-30-2007 7:10 PM


Re: Not a racist thing (and drop the "boy" discussion)
Thank you for the painstaking elaboration, Taz. So you are saying that I have to read every intervening thread before I reply to a response?
No thanks.
That's not why we have subthread reply linkage, eh?
But I know Moose will appreciate your concern.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-30-2007 7:10 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 8:01 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 50 (418861)
08-30-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Omnivorous
08-30-2007 7:19 PM


Please take this to a better place
I think that last few messages are important as a discussion on how to best go about a debate withing the structure. But this topic is not the place.
Normally I would suggest that this discussion go to the "General discussion..." topic, link in my "signature". But upon further thought, perhaps a separate topic would be a good thing. You are more than welcome to start a new Suggestions and Questions topic on the matter.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 7:19 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 8:36 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 43 of 50 (418866)
08-30-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Adminnemooseus
08-30-2007 8:01 PM


Re: Please take this to a better place
May I suggest you close the thread rather than mandate racial hypocrisy?
Sir.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 8:01 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 9:41 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 50 (418867)
08-30-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Omnivorous
08-30-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Not a racist thing (and drop the "boy" discussion)
The way to prove different treatment for blacks v. whites accused of similar crimes is to look at the historical record: it is stark and clear. The notion that only finding an exact parallel in terms of prominence and wealth--but white--would disprove your notion that America suddenly became race blind is absurd.
I think you could make a better case that the media treats the famous more harshly and gives them more attention than the average joe, more so than you could make the argument that they are only seeking prosecution because he's black.
You ask if whites who engage in similar crimes are prosecuted with the same intensity. I think they are. The difference is, you don't hear about it nearly as much because they aren't famous. Its the same with any blacks who commit animal cruelty. You don't hear about it as much because they just so happen to not be famous.
So, couldn't you make a stronger argument against the treatment of celebrities rather than the treatment of blacks in America?
Indeed, the presence of prominence and wealth is statistically associated with better outcomes for the accused.
Vick is prominent and wealthy. Should he get a pass because of that or because of the color of his skin? Lets just allow the courts to treat the case with equity. I would say he should get no pass at all. He should be treated in accordance with measure of his character and the nature of the crime and nothing else.
n_j used classic racist speech; I called him on it; he replied, and I responded. I'm glad to hear he apologized, but that wasn't in any reply to me--I responded to what he had to say directly to my objection. You have a problem with that?
Omni, but I did apologize to you. I specifically apologized to you, Crashfrog, and Vick. I honestly had no idea that the term would have been taken so harshly. Had no ill-intent, so perhaps I was not obligated to apologize. But I thought it best to quell any resentment you might have for me over the remark as a gesture of good faith.
I mean, something has got to give because I can't take the word back. It was said and there is nothing I can do except to apologize. Aside from gouging my eyes out or flogging myself incessantly, I'm not sure what more you would like for me to do.
I'm trying to make amends here.
Do you mean to instruct us to no longer address the racial aspect of this controversy? Why?
Can I ask why you think such a controversy even exists to begin with though? What has happened that led you to believe that Michael is being harassed because of his color, rather than, say, drowning and electrocuting man's best friend?
It seems there is a bit of a dichotomy for you at the present time. If Vick is prosecuted, then you might end up saying it was only because he's black. But if he is let go, then your reprehension for his crime is nullified. Should Vick get a pass just in case some juror has nefarious purposes in mind for him, even without a shred of corroboration to even assert it? Or should he stand trial for his crime and let justice prevail?

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 6:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 45 of 50 (418868)
08-30-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2007 9:08 PM


Re: Not a racist thing (and drop the "boy" discussion)
I'm glad you agree the discussion should not be stifled, n_j.
I'll reply at length, Moose willing, tomorrow.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2007 9:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024