Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

Wait, what? This doesn't make a lick of sense. Assuming he wins the primary, which is only maybe 30% likely, he's up against either Romney or Giuliani, one of which is a senseless thug-o-crat and the other is a made-for-tv stuffed shirt.You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Is there any way for me to reach through your monitor and slap some sense into you?

Better? What's wrong with Obama, exactly?Specifically, what's wrong with him that, in your view, neither Clinton nor Edwards are superior?Unlike Republicans this cycle, Democrats managed to field three great candidates. Republicans seem to have the choice between dumb, dumber, and dumbest. Perhaps if you could specify your concerns in terms of their actual policies and character, as opposed to nebulous phrasings about who you "like" better, you might actually demonstrate sufficient engagement in the process to deserve to vote, just a thought.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Right, so naturally you thought about voting Republican, because of their recent history of consciencious respect for the rights of all humans, especially those detained in the war on terror.I'm not sure what makes you say "diddly squat about human rights." Edwards wasn't even in Congress when the Military Commissions Act came up for a vote. Thank you. No, really.

No, you don't, and if there's a danger that, in the voting booth, you'll vote to "send a message", you probably shouldn't.Think for a second about what Taz is talking about doing. He's so incensed about the idea of politicians ignoring human rights that he's going to lodge a protest vote... for the candidate that has the worse record on human rights.Yeah, that sure "sends a message", all right. If you can't stomach the kind of compromise it takes to participate in democracy, then you probably shouldn't.

Oddly enough there exists no accrediting or licensing body to enforce the Complaining Laws, or to make sure that complaining is only done by those qualified to do so. So Taz's ability to complain for the next 4 years will hardly be hampered in any way by not voting. I agree. I would rather Taz make an effort to educate himself about the issues, and make reasonable determinations for himself about which of the candidates best represents his views, as opposed to not voting.But sorting through politics isn't everybody's cup of tea. Well done, very thorough. Perhaps too thorough. I don't think Al Gore is running, or will run.Or did I miss something?

I'm certain you're wrong about this. He's stated, as plainly as possible on a number of occasions that he has no intention of running for president in 2008.Unless something changed in the past few weeks and I didn't hear about it, but I read political blogs extensively and daily so I think I would know.There's a whole lot of people that want him to run, but he's not yet a candidate for president in 2008 according to any source.

Woah. Tell me you didn't just say that about an African-american presidential candidate.

Then I guess I don't understand your point. Why do you think Holmes would vote for a monkey?

Have you learned what Obama's stances on those issues are?Or is it sufficient to you that he's a national candidate for president, and therefore he must be the height of mendacity and selfishness? Has it occurred to you, at any point, that the reason we're in such dire straits viz-a-viz those issues is due, almost completely, to a decade of Republican control of government?No, of course not. "They're all the same." "Can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats."Please don't vote. This from the guy who can't possibly be bothered to do any research about the positions of the candidates.Please don't vote. Your vote offsets someone who actually got involved in the process and made an intelligent decision about how they wanted to influence the government.Also, please don't refer to black people as "monkeys." Gosh, I guess if you want to be an ignorant racist, there's really nobody stopping you.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

So, just by way of dissecting a bona fide racist under the scope, what in your view is the characteristic of this molecule:that leads a prevalence of it to be unsuitable for a candidate for President of the United States?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Speaking of which there's about 3 or 4 of my questions you've declined to answer in your multiculturalism thread.Maybe now that you and Rrhain are done with your male entitlement whining, you can address them? Or are you supposed to be the sole arbiter of which questions have been answered, and which are never to be answered? That's a nonsense objection, since it could be true of anything where we draw a distinction between consent and somebody merely saying the word "yes" for whatever reason.Does the word "coercion" mean anything to you?

Let's take a look at the scurrilous ad-homimems you're objecting to, in a thread you created, supposedly, to invite my participation. Here's my first post in that thread, in its entirety:

quote:

---

Let me bring over what I said in the other thread, along with some additional thoughts.

​

quote:

---

Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.

​

Obviously, it would be folly in the extreme to think that the solutions of my culture, my neighborhood, my community could be transplanted verbatim halfway across the world and have positive results. I think we've seen the results of that kind of thinking writ large across the Middle East lo the past several years.

​

It's a serious mistake to disregard completely local customs, local outlooks, local solutions to problems. It would be a disaster. And to come in as an outsider to a culture and attempt to solve problems in a way that people are going to respect and help with is a difficult problem indeed.

​

But to say that it is difficult is not to say that it is impossible, or to say that there's no reason to think of problems as problems, or to simply abandon all hope of rendering aid to people not like ourselves, as you would seemingly have us do. It's simply hard.

​

Think of it like a neighborhood, Holmes. When neighbors can't get over their differences, when they're afraid to engage with each other for fear of misunderstanding or out of distrust, neighborhoods suffer for it. We see communities like these in our own country, in the roughest conditions. And, of course, declining conditions drive residents into even more insular and disconnected attitudes.

​

But when neighbors act like neighbors, explore each other's viewpoints, share what works for them, and yes - enforce community standards when it becomes necessary - the neighborhood is vibrant. People feel safe and problems come to have solutions. And, hey, what works at one house doesn't work at another, without taking into account how the people of one home differ from another. Obviously. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't share. And, yes, when a neighbor threatens the community by violating its standards, our differences can't mean that we don't take action.

​

It's ultimately selfish to withhold from others the benefits we enjoy. It's ultimately racist to assert that those who are not like us can gain nothing from what we have to offer them, or they from us. I'm sorry you object to that, but it's true. Language, culture, and race are not excuses for us to close our hearts to one another, regardless of what precious multi-culturalism might tell you.

---

​

Now, you're going to object (I imagine) to me acting like my idea of community standards are right; but like Greg House, I simply can't operate from the assumption that I'm wrong about everything. Who can?

​

And I don't envision this human community as one that does exactly what I say; I see it as a community where individuals bring what they individually think is right to the table, and then a consensus emerges through compromise and conversation.

​

I don't see it as a deterministic process, subject to rigid interpretations and dogmatic assertions of what is right and wrong overriding all other belief. I see it as a holistic process where the community as a whole develops its own standards even as individual members take opposing viewpoints.

​

holmes writes:

​

For example there is no "wolf community" such that one wolf, or pack, suddenly gets entry to all others by virtue of being the same species.

​

You've just identified that wolf community - the wolf species, Canis lupis.

​

Similarly, species Homo sapiens forms a community entire. In a biological sense its a reproductive community - by definition - but it's also a social community. The vast record of human history is not one of isolation, but one of congress, one of sharing, one of communication, however attenuated by distance.

​

holmes writes:

​

Somehow I don't see this as a coming together to share a human community at all, otherwise they'd have a say, and a vote, in how you live.

​

They do. Why wouldn't they?

​

holmes writes:

​

It is my belief the concept of human rights is currently being used as a pretext to destroy cultural diversity.

​

That's an astounding accusation of bad faith on your part. What possible evidence could you have that your opponents are motivated not by concern for other human beings, but out of a desire to "destroy cultural diversity"? Why would anybody want to do that?

---

Oh, wow. I mean I really laid into you! First I called you a... um... and then a.... yeah. Actually I really can't see a single example of the ad hominem you're talking about.Moving on, let's catalog the vicious imprecations I employed in my next post:

quote:

---

Scratch all that. I think I can put this all to bed a lot sooner if I concentrate a lot less on your disingenuous sophistry, cites that don't actually support your points, and strawman rebuttals, and just cut right to the chase.

​

Aside from violating the prime directive and "enforcing cultural ideals on other people", or whatever - in your view, Holmes, is there even a cultural practice you would find indefensible? Could there be such a practice, in your view?

​

If so what would be an example?

---

Hrm. Again, I simply don't see any personal attacks. That your posts are disingenuous is a reflection on your arguments, not on you. I've told you in the past what you need to do to avoid being accused of being disingenuous; simply stop being disingenuous. Like you are here: Hopefully it should be lost on no one that that's how I started out, from the get-go; the result is that my points were repeatedly ignored - despite your specific invitation.Look, it's not my fault that it takes a little needling to get your attention. And I was actually being quite civil until you fell right back into your old habits of relentless misrepresentation and disingenuity. I gave you every opportunity to convince me you had turned over a new leaf, like you asked for, and instantly after being told you had that chance you threw it back in my face.And now you're acting like it's been all my fault? Please don't take it personally when I tell you to get the hell over yourself. If you want to engage in a civil discussion be civil. Be honest. Again, you have the exact same opportunity to do so as you've always had in the past.Why you continue to turn your back on honesty remains completely beyond my understanding - not least of which because you've refused, for a year at least, to give any kind of explanation for your egregious conduct. When you can behave without animus, it will be.

Behavior that you misrepresented. I did not say what you asserted I had said.Misrepresentation upon misrepresentation. I'm sorry you find the accurate description of your behavior "uncivil", and a "personal attack", even though it is abundantly obvious that it is neither. Yet, it's those questions you continue to evade.Funny, that. I provided exactly what you asked for; your sole response has been to evade and misrepresent. Except that I didn't. What I said was if you could be civil, you had every opportunity to begin doing so. Which is what you were asking for - the chance to begin again.You've chosen to respond by completely misrepresenting the exchange and throwing it in my face. I'll repeat my point in that post; at any time that you'd like to begin discussing honestly, you can do so, and then the debate will proceed honestly.You're the only one who insists on incivility. Thus, the discussion will become civil as soon as you choose to make it so. If you'd like to do that, you can respond to both of those two posts in your thread - posts 4 and 16 - and we can proceed with the actual discussion instead of grappling with your misrepresentations. We're already discussing an issue; the issue is why you insist on misrepresenting nearly every exchange you become involved in. How do you explain this intense dishonesty on your part?

If only that were true. Instead, I find misrepresentation. Nonetheless, we should continue the discussion over there.

They can't give informed consent about adult sexual activities, no. Who says they can't give informed consent about whether or not to play soccer, or something?Not being able to give informed consent doesn't mean that they can't do something; it just means that somebody else has to make that decision, for them, in their interest. If there's a legitimate interest for the child in getting raped by an adult, it is incumbent on those who hold that position to describe it. NJ's argument doesn't really assail consent issues, because the inconsistency he describes doesn't exist.