Liberal Protests

[Rob's House]

9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

If the meaning is so obvious why don't you explain.

that it's not exactly hard to see why protesters against systemic racism would pull down a statue of a known slave trader?

 

It's easy to see why morons would, but viewing a man from the 1400s through the ethnocentric lens of 21st century American morality is patently absurd.

 

The concept of individual liberty wasn't present anywhere in the world. Conquest and subjugation was the norm among all civilizations. There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about this.

 

Columbus isn't remembered for being the wokest angel of his time, he's remembered for bringing European civilization to the Americas. Ethnocentric purity tests aren't enlightened. They're fu¢king stupid.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Rob's House

[Warcodered]

Just now, Rob's House said:

 

It's easy to see why morons would, but viewing a man from the 1400s through the ethnocentric lens of 21st century American morality is patently absurd.

 

The concept of individual liberty wasn't present anywhere in the world. Conquest and subjugation was the norm among all civilizations. There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about this.

 

Columbus isn't remembered for being the wokest angel of his time, he's remembered for bringing civilization to the Americas. Ethnocentric purity tests aren't enlightened. They're fu¢king stupid.

Right because the ones that were already here didn't count....for reasons.

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

In his journal, Columbus didn’t mince words about his intentions after meeting the Arawak natives in the Bahamas in 1492. He described the encounter thusly: “They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things ... They willingly traded everything they owned ... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features .... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane. ... They would make fine servants. ... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” Columbus would add: “As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.”

 

And that's different from the others in his day... how? Right. You can't look back at history using a modern lens to pass judgment -- unless you're a Marxist practicing critical theory in order to destroy the past. 

 

Thank you for proving my point. 

[Commsvet11]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Right because the ones that were already here didn't count....for reasons.

Well looks like you have your beef, take it up with Columbus then.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And that's different from the others in his day... how? Right. You can't look back at history using a modern lens to pass judgment -- unless you're a Marxist practicing critical theory in order to destroy the past. 

 

Thank you for proving my point. 

So you can't look at the past and see that people did some ***** up ***** unless you're a communist, and that's what you believe?

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

So you can't look at the past and see that people did some ***** up ***** unless you're a communist, and that's what you believe?

 

I'm  a historian with multiple degrees on the subject. What I said was different than what you're implying. I said, you cannot look back at the past with a modern lens in order to pass judgment unless your goal is to be dishonest about history itself. 

 

It's Critical Theory 101 -- which is Marxist. It's goal is not to give you an understanding of history, but to shade it and distort it into "evil" in order to destroy it. 

 

And you're playing right along with it because you're not stopping to think for yourself. 

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Take a moment to look at the cartoon and use your critical thinking skills. I’m sure you’ll figure it out on your own. 

Yet another person whom seems to think this cartoon is obvious maybe you can be the one to explain what pulling down a statue of Columbus has to do with Communism.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you guys actually no what Communism and Socialism mean or if it's just somehow become slang for thing you don't like.

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right because the ones that were already here didn't count....for reasons.

Let me ask you a question. Not sure how old you are but did you, your dad or your grampa ever concern themselves with drinking while they drove?  My dad never thought twice about driving with a beer between his legs. We’d be horrified at the thought of that today. And that’s just 40 plus years ago. 
 

Not sure if this is a good analogy but it was the first one that popped in my head. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Warcodered said:

Yet another person whom seems to think this cartoon is obvious maybe you can be the one to explain what pulling down a statue of Columbus has to do with Communism.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you guys actually no what Communism and Socialism mean or if it's just somehow become slang for thing you don't like.

 

It is obvious. So obvious it took me one sentence to explain it. 

 

But you're in denial about what's actually happening. Which is why you're lost. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Yet another person whom seems to think this cartoon is obvious maybe you can be the one to explain what pulling down a statue of Columbus has to do with Communism.

 

 

It has NOTHING to do with communism and everything to do with critical thinking and change. 

[Warcodered]

16 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

It has NOTHING to do with communism and everything to do with critical thinking and change. 

Right so go off the cartoon the implication is that the pulling down of Columbus' statue leads to Communism could you tell me how?

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm  a historian with multiple degrees on the subject. What I said was different than what you're implying. I said, you cannot look back at the past with a modern lens in order to pass judgment unless your goal is to be dishonest about history itself. 

 

It's Critical Theory 101 -- which is Marxist. It's goal is not to give you an understanding of history, but to shade it and distort it into "evil" in order to destroy it. 

 

And you're playing right along with it because you're not stopping to think for yourself. 

So you're of the opinion that morality is subjective?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

So you're of the opinion that morality is subjective?

 

Morality changes throughout history. That's not a revolutionary statement, it's fact. And if you judge the past using the modern lens, you'll always be misled. 

 

[Warcodered]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Morality changes throughout history. That's not a revolutionary statement, it's fact.

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

And if you judge the past using the modern lens, you'll always be misled. 

But I do think I see how this could be possible, though I believe if you think carefully and keep a level head you can avoid it.

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

 

3 months ago, no one wore a mask to go to the grocery store.

It is now immoral to do so.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

27 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there

 

You're diametrically opposed to a basic fact? It's not an issue of opinion. 

 

But that's because somewhere you had a Marxist teacher, or you've fallen under the spell of critical theory in all its toxic forms. Slavery existed since the beginning of time. It existed long before Columbus came here, it existed long after he shuffled off this mortal coil. Expecting a man to completely change -- not just his own perspective, but that of the entire world, based on modern moralities and ideologies is dishonest to its core. It does not illuminate truth of the past, it hides it and buries it under nonsense. 

 

30 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

But I do think I see how this could be possible, though I believe if you think carefully and keep a level head you can avoid it.

 

Keeping a level would mean not being diametrically opposed to a fact   

[Chef Jim]

44 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right so go off the cartoon the implication is that the pulling down of Columbus' statue leads to Communism could you tell me how?

 

 

No I took it to mean be mindful of your idols. 

[Rob's House]

38 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

 

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it."

 

The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority.

 

The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it."

 

The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority.

 

The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

 
Another @Deranged Rhino handle - you go bro

[Deranged Rhino]

CTE is real, kids. 

 

[Warcodered]

35 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

3 months ago, no one wore a mask to go to the grocery store.

It is now immoral to do so.

 

 

I'm sorry but you kind of missed the point all together. What your describing is more a change in circumstance than a change in perception.

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You're diametrically opposed to a basic fact? It's not an issue of opinion. 

I'd say it's rather obvious I don't consider it to be a fact.?

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Slavery existed since the beginning of time. It existed long before Columbus came here, it existed long after he shuffled off this mortal coil.

and I'd say it has always been wrong even when society deemed it to be acceptable.

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It does not illuminate truth of the past, it hides it and buries it under nonsense. 

what exactly does it hide?

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

No I took it to mean be mindful of your idols. 

Then I guess we just viewed it differently.

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

 

The implicit statement in all these ethnocentric declarations is "if I lived in that time I would be against it."

 

The only thing you're actually communicating is that you don't understand moral psychology and you want to feel/signal moral superiority.

 

The truth is you have no idea how you would have felt had you been raised in different times under different circumstances. Any suggestion to the contrary is hubris.

No if I'd been born in raised in those times I'd be pretty likely to believe in all those things like average person of those times, it wouldn't make me right though.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

I'm diametrically opposed to this so I doubt we'd be able to find common ground there.

How can you be diametrically opposed to the reality that human morality has changed throughout the course of human history?

 

The entire concept of morality has been fluid throughout human‘s social development and levels of interaction over the last six million years or so.

 

The introduction of modern religions designate a clear shift in moral attitudes, the Stoics and later the Enlightenment another, as the modern concepts of human freedom as a virtue didn‘t even exist until that point.
 

And the reason they didn’t exist?  Until that point life was too hard, and too brutal, for individuals to spend much, if any, time engaged in developing moral philosophy.
 

Until Locke presented his argument, it was generally presumed that the proper moral order was that everyone existed under the absolute rule of a monarch who derived his power directly from the Divine.

Believing that none of this is true is an outright rejection of the realities of human history.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

When the mob tears down a statue it is an act of anarchy. If a city council or legislature determines that a statue be torn down it is not an act of anarchy. Communism is born out of anarchy. Many of the people who are presently committing anarchism have freely admitted that they are Marxist. It's no great leap to figure out what's going on.

[B-Man]

 

I cannot believe that a simple cartoon needs to be explained. 
 

FIRST, the fact that it is Columbus really doesn’t enter into it, other than the fact that it was the last one done two days ago 

 

all your posts about him are superfluous squirrels 

 

The liberal mob tearing down statue after statue, without any public support, because they disagree with them is how Socialism operates.  
 

 

Think. 
 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Warcodered said:

I'd say it's rather obvious I don't consider it to be a fact.?

 

 

Being wrong about a fact doesn't suddenly make it an opinion. If morality wasn't an ever changing construct in history you could prove it. But you cannot. While I can prove, very easily, that it is. 

 

You're wrong. All the way. 

 

Just now, Warcodered said:

and I'd say it has always been wrong even when society deemed it to be acceptable.

 

You can say this because you were born into a world where slavery was deemed a moral evil. That took hundreds of years to change, and one of the bloodiest wars in our nation's history. Which, of course, only proves my point. 

2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

No if I'd been born in raised in those times I'd be pretty likely to believe in all those things like average person of those times, it wouldn't make me right though.

 

But it wouldn't make you evil, or unworthy of your place in history. 

[Deranged Rhino]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

CTE is real, kids. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

When the mob tears down a statue it is an act of anarchy. If a city council or legislature determines that a statue be torn down it is not an act of anarchy. Communism is born out of anarchy. Many of the people who are presently committing anarchism have freely admitted that they are Marxist. It's no great leap to figure out what's going on.

It’s not anarchy, it’s a communist revolution.

 

Anarchy is building a shed without a permit, or drinking raw milk sold to you by a neighbor in a non-State sanctioned currency without paying taxes, or hunting or fishing without a license.

[Rob's House]

 

[Warcodered]

26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

How can you be diametrically opposed to the reality that human morality has changed throughout the course of human history?

 

The entire concept of morality has been fluid throughout human‘s social development and levels of interaction over the last six million years or so.

 

The introduction of modern religions designate a clear shift in moral attitudes, the Stoics and later the Enlightenment another, as the modern concepts of human freedom as a virtue didn‘t even exist until that point.
 

And the reason they didn’t exist?  Until that point life was too hard, and too brutal, for individuals to spend much, if any, time engaged in developing moral philosophy.
 

Until Locke presented his argument, it was generally presumed that the proper moral order was that everyone existed under the absolute rule of a monarch who derived his power directly from the Divine.

Believing that none of this is true is an outright rejection of the realities of human history.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Being wrong about a fact doesn't suddenly make it an opinion. If morality wasn't an ever changing construct in history you could prove it. But you cannot. While I can prove, very easily, that it is. 

 

You're wrong. All the way. 

 

 

You can say this because you were born into a world where slavery was deemed a moral evil. That took hundreds of years to change, and one of the bloodiest wars in our nation's history. Which, of course, only proves my point. 

 

But it wouldn't make you evil, or unworthy of your place in history. 

I'd say what I'm arguing is the existence and separation of intrinsic morality from a historic cultural morality.

 

[123719bwiqrb]

11 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

cucking funts

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

I'd say what I'm arguing is the existence and separation of intrinsic morality from a historic cultural morality.

 

If that’s true, then show me how this “intrinsic morality” has existed unchanged throughout time. 
 

Give me philosophers, or literature, or any minds that cross the chasm of history all citing the same intrinsic morality. 
 

... You can’t do it, because what you’re arguing doesn’t exist. You’re taking our modern morality and saying it’s the peak, and will never be changed, evolve, or be re-examined by future generations of philosophers and humans. 

[Rob's House]

4 minutes ago, 123719bwiqrb said:

cucking funts

 

He's trolling the left.

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

I'd say what I'm arguing is the existence and separation of intrinsic morality from a historic cultural morality.

 

I think you might be trying to assert an objective moral law --- you could assert this as a Kantian or follow the natural law tradition discoverable in Aquinas among others. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the natural law thesis, though there's no doubt that even if one grants it exists, it is not immediately self-evident and requires certain prerequisite beliefs as a foundation for it's rationality. (Granted, there are no ethics without at least an implicit metaphysics and first principles are not demonstrable, though one can intuit them.) C. S. Lewis wrote a book decades ago, The Abolition of Man, that argued for a perduring sense of morality transcendent of any particular culture. I think one can become so deracinated and cut off from communal relations that foundational experiences necessary to recognize an objective moral law are lacking. And, of course, in a meritricious, decadent society, sophists gain control of the modes of education and youth begin ignorant and end in entrenched ideology that blinds them to any substantial understanding of reality. Truth as transcendent purchase on an objectivity that cannot simply be written out of existence by human fiat is pretty much the opposite of cancel "culture."

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

Right so go off the cartoon the implication is that the pulling down of Columbus' statue leads to Communism could you tell me how?

 

So you're of the opinion that morality is subjective?

 

Guess what.

 

Some of the things you are doing now will be considered abhorrent 150 years from today.

[TakeYouToTasker]

19 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

I'd say what I'm arguing is the existence and separation of intrinsic morality from a historic cultural morality.

 

How can this be if human social development  disagrees with it?

[Warcodered]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

If that’s true, then show me how this “intrinsic morality” has existed unchanged throughout time. 
 

Give me philosophers, or literature, or any minds that cross the chasm of history all citing the same intrinsic morality. 
 

... You can’t do it, because what you’re arguing doesn’t exist. You’re taking our modern morality and saying it’s the peak, and will never be changed, evolve, or be re-examined by future generations of philosophers and humans. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Guess what.

 

Some of the things you are doing now will be considered abhorrent 150 years from today.

That's inevitably true all I can do is the best I can with how I see the world now doesn't mean people in future with a hopefully better understanding of the world shouldn't judge my mistakes.

[reddogblitz]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

That's inevitably true all I can do is the best I can with how I see the world now doesn't mean people in future with a hopefully better understanding of the world shouldn't judge my mistakes.

 

Couldn't the same be said of people from previous generations?  Don't you think they were doing their best with what they had?

 

 

[Magox]

Another Confederate Statue to be taken down

 

hold up.... what?    
 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

36 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

 

You realize this works against your point. 

8 minutes ago, Magox said:

Another Confederate Statue to be taken down

 

hold up.... what?    
 

 

Wonder what they’ll do to Rushmore. 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It’s not anarchy, it’s a communist revolution.

 

Anarchy is building a shed without a permit, or drinking raw milk sold to you by a neighbor in a non-State sanctioned currency without paying taxes, or hunting or fishing without a license.

anarchy

[ˈanərkē]

 

NOUN

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

   "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"

   synonyms:

   lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot · rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos · tumult · turmoil · mayhem · pandemonium

   • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

   ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    

   It takes anarchy to tear down the existing norms in order to set up for a communist revolution.

[Warcodered]

13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You realize this works against your point. 

Care to elaborate?