[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Slavery 2.0?[/quote]Listen I know you’re kinda new here, but I’ve been over this a thousand times. The state sponsored programs alleged to be helping black people are and have been a soul crushing internal prison whereby generations of blacks are now enslaved in the welfare system that has decimated their families and crushed their hope for the future. Detroit is the sick dying object lesson in this very thing. The church I now go to, which is about 95% black, attracted me in part because they get that. I’m not up to plowing this very old ground again at the moment. Really, nuthin personal.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Slavery 2.0?[/quote]Listen I know you’re kinda new here, but I’ve been over this a thousand times. The state sponsored programs alleged to be helping black people are and have been a soul crushing internal prison whereby generations of blacks are now enslaved in the welfare system that has decimated their families and crushed their hope for the future. Detroit is the sick dying object lesson in this very thing. The church I now go to, which is about 95% black, attracted me in part because they get that. I’m not up to plowing this very old ground again at the moment. Really, nuthin personal.
[/quote]
Gotta link to an old thread?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Slavery 2.0?[/quote]Listen I know you’re kinda new here, but I’ve been over this a thousand times. The state sponsored programs alleged to be helping black people are and have been a soul crushing internal prison whereby generations of blacks are now enslaved in the welfare system that has decimated their families and crushed their hope for the future. Detroit is the sick dying object lesson in this very thing. The church I now go to, which is about 95% black, attracted me in part because they get that. I’m not up to plowing this very old ground again at the moment. Really, nuthin personal.
[/quote]
Gotta link to an old thread?[/quote]I’m sure I can find one. I can’t do it at this very moment though. Put a man in chains and you’ve trapped his body. Get him to surrender his freedom voluntarily by seducing him into dependence on someone else and you’ve stripped him of his manhood. I am living in the middle of it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The thought of Aliens is intriguing, even to me, but it is not biblical. [/quote]
Neither is landing on the moon.[/quote]Landing on the moon does not involve beings created in the image of God, their state before Him or their relation to the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the second person of the Godhead. Landing on the moon is the theological equivalent of early European explorers (or the Norsemen) landing on a new continent. There was no chance of finding morally cognizant non Adamic beings there either.[/quote]
As C.S. Lewis wrote about, maybe they are in a uncorrupted human form, non-fallen. Either way, baptize 'em![/quote]I am pretty sure that there are no such beings. I see all of creation falling with Adam in scripture.
[/quote]
not all of creation, the dirty didn’t fall. Man fell, yes. As the head Astrologer for the Vatican said, mathematically and logically it seems impossible. However, if they have legs and arms, I’ll be the first to baptize them.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As C.S. Lewis wrote about, maybe they are in a uncorrupted human form, non-fallen. Either way, baptize 'em![/quote]I am pretty sure that there are no such beings. I see all of creation falling with Adam in scripture.
[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
not all of creation, the dirty didn’t fall. Man fell, yes. As the head Astrologer for the Vatican said, mathematically and logically it seems impossible. However, if they have legs and arms, I’ll be the first to baptize them. [/quote]I don’t know who you mean by “dirty” and I really hope you mean astronomer and not astrologer though almost nothing would surprise me anymore. Why would you baptize a being that did not fall in Adam?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As C.S. Lewis wrote about, maybe they are in a uncorrupted human form, non-fallen. Either way, baptize 'em![/quote]I am pretty sure that there are no such beings. I see all of creation falling with Adam in scripture.
[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
not all of creation, the dirty didn’t fall. Man fell, yes. As the head Astrologer for the Vatican said, mathematically and logically it seems impossible. However, if they have legs and arms, I’ll be the first to baptize them. [/quote]I don’t know who you mean by “dirty” and I really hope you mean astronomer and not astrologer though almost nothing would surprise me anymore. Why would you baptize a being that did not fall in Adam?
[/quote]
Sorry, yes. I’ve gotten four new phones in the last few weeks so none have actually gotten used to how I type.
Because they still need God’s grace. They need the initial justification just like all of us, and since they are not fallen, they’ll have no problem with the sanctification part.
P.S. I meant dirt, not dirt.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pookie wrote:
<<< Having fun yet?
[/quote]I am. Please go on making my point by comparing the moral cesspool of the present “religious” United States with highly secular nations. We are a decaying corpse of our former selves. We took the exact wrong paths in addressing the grievous shortcomings that remained in our national fabric and laid ourselves wide open to exactly the critiques you offer. It wasn’t always so. We were catapulted in absolutely meteoric fashion to the preeminent superpower of the world and are plunging even more rapidly into pathetic irrelevance as more and more of this countries conscience reweaves itself in your godless image. We are falling. The countries you mention never were an example to anybody. I have no illusions about how you’ll respond to this, but go ahead.
[/quote]
Man do I feel insulted right now. Sniff. But following your logic, back here our standard of living has risen at same pace as the influence of religion on society has diminished. Must be a sign of end of the times, or something like that, how do you otherwise explain it?
I must add that the traditional rituals at birth, marriage and death are still highly popular, even though church attendance is otherwise very low. Even I do still pay voluntarily taxes to the church.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What would you do if I ever left T Nation Cap? You’d have darn little material, you just mentioned me in two posts in a row. Thank you very much, I’m flattered…really.
[/quote]
Aw. <3
The intelligent decision making progress is impeded by the constant pressure to make one set of decisions over another. Forlife grew up in America (near as I can tell) where he was told, mostly implicitly, that he “should” have sex with women, he “should” get married, he “should” have kids. So he attempted to live out the life story his culture told him is the “right” one.
“He wakes up one morning and decides he is a homosexual” – seriously, do you really think that was his experience? I ask that only 20% contemptuously and 80% seriously.
You’re just proving my point. “It tears our society apart! Mothers will end up on welfare!”
Except that its exactly the opposite of reality in Forlifes situation. But you keep beating the “you must do as we say or the world will collapse” drum.[/quote]
I’ve always done my best to make good decisions, based on what I believed at the time. Of course I knew that I was gay, but I had also been taught my whole life that homosexuality was wrong. I discussed it with my wife before we got married, because I felt she had the right to know. My church leaders told me that it was God’s eternal plan for me to get married, and that God would make everything all right. So I did what I believed was the right thing at the time. I was honest with my wife throughout the entire process, both before and after marriage. And I think that honesty is one reason we have been able to stay on good terms in the years following our divorce.
Unfortunately, my church leaders were wrong. My sexual orientation never changed, and when my wife and I realized that it wasn’t going to happen, we felt divorce was the best option for both of us.
On a positive note, my former church is starting to wake up, and is no longer counseling gay members to get married. Not that a lifetime of loneliness and celibacy is much to offer, but at least they aren’t pushing people into marriages that are likely to fail.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Forlife grew up in America (near as I can tell) where he was told, mostly implicitly, that he “should” have sex with women,[/quote]
Tell me how a homosexual male can have sexual relations with women on a regular basis? Or even once for that matter? How many heterosexual men do you know who regularly have sex with other men? I always found it odd that over 80% of homosexual men have had, or continue to have sex with women. I know, this is another debate, but still nonetheless very strange.
Oh, sorry I forgot, our culture is responsible for all poor decsions made by…is it just those on the left, or can it be everyone?
[quote]“He wakes up one morning and decides he is a homosexual” – seriously, do you really think that was his experience? I ask that only 20% contemptuously and 80% seriously.
[/quote]
Who knows how it happened. This is your scenario: He’s walking along one day perfectly happy with his homosexual self, then because of all those darn pressures from society he decides to mess up some womans life with his presence. He gets married has sex with her at least twice and fathers two fine children. Now what happens next is anyones guess - - I say he woke up one day and could not stand the fact that he could no longer have sex with men so BANG he’s gone. Did it happen over a period of time? Who cares? The point is the same, he wants sex with a man more than he wants to stay with his wife and two young children. That means he made a very serious error BEFORE he married her which produced yet one more divorce.
[quote]You’re just proving my point. “It tears our society apart! Mothers will end up on welfare!”
Except that its exactly the opposite of reality in Forlifes situation. But you keep beating the “you must do as we say or the world will collapse” drum.[/quote]
Hey, glad his wife and kids are not on welfare if that’s the case. But I am correct regarding the welfare scenario of the single mom. Their chances of goig on welfare skyrocket if they raise a family alone. Look it up Cap you’re a bright person.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve always done my best to make good decisions, based on what I believed at the time.[/quote]
And this is just ONE reason why it’s good to actually have a moral compass in your life. Something larger than you that you respect enough to follow. We Christians call it the Bible. You follow your emotions — See what happened?
(clears throat) Then you DON’T GET MARRIED! And certainly DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN!
Nice story forlife - But all your doing is blaming the Church for your poor decision, nice dodge.
I’m not so sure they were wrong. You were able to have sex with your wife and father two children. How does a homosexual man do such a thing when he can only become aroused by another man? And since we are on the topic how do over 80% of all homosexual men have sex with women? I find that odd. Especially in light of the fact that heterosexual men have sex with women and do not cross back and forth. I wonder if there are really only bisexuals?
That was a nice sanitary way of explaining what happened. Glad you left out all the crying and personal anguish that she suffered and let’s not even talk about the kids. But hey your personal happiness is far more important than the institution of marriage, your wife’s total embarrassment means nothing right? (My husband left me he’s a homosexual-I’m so proud of him) and whatever the hell you put your kids through. You bet GOOD DECISION - But as long as you’re happy hey one out of four is good if the one is you. Right? Is that how it works? PUT SELF FIRST?
Yeah, that’s good because it was ALL Their fault. If they never told you to get married you wouldn’t have RIGHT? Do you ever feel the need to MAN UP? No YOU probably don’t.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]
We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.
From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]
Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.
Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]
Now that you admit that your evolutionary morality isn’t morality at all; how do you deduce natural rights from your evolutionary ethic. How do you defend that mass rape isn’t in the interest of evolution when it is the most successful method man has come up to spread his genes up to date(genghis khan for example).[/quote]
I don’t deduce any natural rights.
And, it should be plainly obvious that on a historical scale, strategies like mass rape are not successful. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the best idea for a long-term, stable society… which tends to be better for the entire human genome.
I’ve stated here before, and I will again: What we evolve into in the next hundred, five hundred, thousand years or whatever increment you pick, may appear repugnant to our current sensibilities. We may succeed. We may fail… we may be extinct with the next hundred years. In many ways, it’s hard to say.
Evolution can be brutal, but wanting comforting answers and finding those answers to be true are two different things. [/quote]
Since you can’t deduce natural rights or say that mass rape is wrong as an evolutionary tool http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html from an evolutionary perspective. Do believe in morality and that morals come from somewhere or are they just subjective “values” you hold that contradict the logical conclusion of evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
Define the logical conclusions of “evolutionary ethics.”
[/quote]
I am only evolutionary successful if I spread my genes, for the human species as a whole to be more successful eugenics programs to improve our evolutionary fitness letting only healthy people reproduce in such a way that maximization of genetic variation is the result etc etc …[/quote]
You are conflating evolutionary ethics with evolutionary morality and mixing in an ideology of “survival of the fittest.”
-
Evolutionary morality simply proposes that morals emerged from evolved cognitive tools.
-
Maximization of genetic variation as a goal would actually call for preserving as many lives as possible so that more genomes have a chance to reproduce. This would be the opposite of eugenics programs which typically call for a reduction in genomes to favor more “desirable ones.”
[/quote]
Then we are going to have to agree upon a working definition of morality that works for the both of us although I assert that a transcendent morality is the only one of any value.
Although genetic variation is good a good think you really think that conservation of genes that produce sickness and deformity is a good thing?
Hi Zeb,
My response was for the people on these boards whose opinions I respect. Like I said a while back, I don’t take you seriously any more. Feel free to continue posting though, you only prove my point 
[quote]forlife wrote:
Hi Zeb,
My response was for the people on these boards whose opinions I respect. Like I said a while back, I don’t take you seriously any more. Feel free to continue posting though, you only prove my point :)[/quote]
Like I respect you and how you’ve lived your life? You are part of what’s wrong with America. You live by your short term emotion, you’re not smart, or disciplined enough to create a plan and stick with it. You put your own lustful pleasures ahead of your wife and two young children. And as I said in an earlier post, it almost doesn’t even matter that you’re gay. Being gay is not the issue. I used you as an example because at this point that’s about all you’re good for. You’re the poster boy for what NOT to do.
Carry on with our smug little posts if it makes you feel better. Perhaps, by YOU airing your dirty laundry on this site you can do some good for others as they try really hard not to make the mistakes that you’ve made.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Unfortunately, my church leaders were wrong. My sexual orientation never changed, >>>[/quote]I know nothing about that church, but what never changed was your heart and standing with and before God. That is in no way to say that deliverance is necessarily instantaneous (but maybe) or without serious struggle. I’m at war with my flesh every second of every day. The fact that it isn’t with homosexuality doesn’t make me any more naturally inclined to righteousness than you are. It is of great significance that a simple bite from a piece of fruit was decreed the catalyst for this whole mess. Any and all sin is damnable.
I must say though that sexual sin does carry a heavy grievousness factor with God because it betrays, pollutes and corrupts the beautiful design of a man and a woman typifying the awesome relationship of ultimate intimacy between the bridegroom Christ and His church bride (Ephesians 5:22 —> as well as completing the very image of God in man which encompasses both sexes.
There are men and women living in godly victory over same sex attraction. Not that you would want to because you say you don’t believe there’s a God who cares, but there it is.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First of all you are misconstruing Chaos theory and quantum mechanics incorrectly, both theories are logically consistent in and of themselves and both attempt to describe what we can infer and deduce from nature and this hangs on the assumption that we can describe and perceive the world rationally. Highly sensitive initial conditions or having to describe the electron as a probabilistic wave function due to the mathematically deduced Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn’t do away with the assumption that we can perceive and make statements about our world with any sense of intelligibility; otherwise there would be no value to the scientific method. Einstein has said “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” which makes perfect sense from his and most materialist’s world view.[/quote]
I may have misused Chaos Theory here, but I certainly didn’t misuse Quantum Mechanics. The observer effect & the inability to determine the exact time at which an electron decays have both been described as irrational… by none other that Einstein himself.
Back to what the interviewee had to say though… he said “All science is based on a fundamental faith that the universe is rational and intelligible.” This is just false. I’ll give you another example: Roger Penrose, for decades held that what was before the big bang was unintelligible and irrational to physics. In fact, this was the dominant position on cosmology for at least 20 years.
Science attempts to explain the universe with rationale and logic, but this does not require that the universe itself be rational.
My point in addressing this statement of his is to show that one of the underpinnings of his argument is VERY arguable. He treats it as if it is incontrovertible truth… which is silly.
Are you serious?
Natural selection is not an intelligent process. Why would I attempt to argue from the position that it is? That’s just silly. Of course evolution or natural selection don’t care… neither have an intelligence with which to care. Natural selection is nothing more than a crucible that rational intelligence happens to be suited to overcoming.
And, as I mentioned to someone else earlier in this thread, the argument that we can’t trust our cognitive tools such as rationality can go any number of ways.
How do you know that you even exist?
How do you know that what you see as the color red is the same thing that I see as the color red?
How do you know that you have not been tricked into having faith in the Devil?
When you (or Wfifer) bring this in to the argument and apply it selectively to rationality as a tool of evolution, you are being willfully, selectively ignorant.
And, do you care to defend his statement that evolutionists perceive their thoughts as no more than “the random motion of atoms” in their brains? As I mentioned in my first response, this is a pretty blatant straw man.
Doesn’t have much to do with what he brought up??? Are you kidding? I was responding specifically to what he said in that interview… quotes and all.
I’m sorry, but your response here is just lazy.
You did ask me what I though of it.
[/quote]
First of all the observer effect is not irrational, all of science is based on that the world can be interpreted logically. If you do not understand, Ill give you an example of how the scientific method. If we observe a thing either in experiment or in observation of our natural world that contradicts what a theory predicts we hold that the theory is wrong due to applying the law of non contradiction that holds the statement that “what the theory predicted and our observations from experiment are both true in the same way” to be false.
The laws of logic are axioms with which to try to disprove them is fruitless because one relies on the same logic to try to disprove them. The scientific method presupposes logic and rationality.
The observer effect is testable and repeatable and although current quantum mechanics and some of its interpretations such as the many worlds interpretation may be a poor explanation of why it happens. Then we know that our current form of quantum mechanics is poor at explaining it, not that there’s anything irrational about the universe just that our theories aren’t up to snuff and may never be.
Electron decay? If your talking about radioactive decay, probabilistic functions even though they accurately describe phenomenon just didn’t jive well with Einstein since if he could he would have quantum mechanics replaced with a theory that would predict which specific atom decayed at a specific time. Although one cannot have such a theory due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which also is not irrational in addition to Godel’s and Bell’s theorem.
Roger Penrose is right, you cannot apply the scientific method to the universe before the universe existed although one can apply logic to it. Science has other limitations as well.
“Science attempts to explain the universe with rationale and logic, but this does not require that the universe itself be rational.” Oh I see so we only have faith that the universe itself is rational. Applying logic and rationality to a universe that isn’t just doesn’t make sense.
To your second response of course one has to realize that we presuppose rational intelligence even though natural selection is unfit to explain it.
I do not know whether I exist, see the color red in the same sense that you do or whether you or I have been tricked into having faith in the devil and neither do you. My point is that all of us start off with presuppositions and axioms that either justify why we have faith to believe that we are rational beings or not(although some like Ephrem do not anyone is rational at all or whether there is truth or not). Although I have faith(and so do you) which the majority of the human population considers reasonable even though there is no proof of such things, there are other minds then my own, that this world is real and that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age and that we are rational beings. The difference between me and you is that the reason I believe my rationality is justified in an eternal being who is the God of Truth and in him there is no darkness and is knowable, even for your purposes you can call him as an impersonal first cause.
Sorry the argument doesn’t apply to evolutionist as there are many people who believe in evolution on this board who are theist. The argument applies to the naturalist or materialist if the thought processes in our heads is the product of the motion of atoms and electrons how can I have any trust that what my faculties are telling me is the truth that is to say that my thought processes are the product of the motions of atoms and electrons.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Unfortunately, my church leaders were wrong. My sexual orientation never changed, >>>[/quote]I know nothing about that church, but what never changed was your heart and standing with and before God. That is in no way to say that deliverance is necessarily instantaneous (but maybe) or without serious struggle. I’m at war with my flesh every second of every day. The fact that it isn’t with homosexuality doesn’t make me any more naturally inclined to righteousness than you are. It is of great significance that a simple bite from a piece of fruit was decreed the catalyst for this whole mess. Any and all sin is damnable.
I must say though that sexual sin does carry a heavy grievousness factor with God because it betrays, pollutes and corrupts the beautiful design of a man and a woman typifying the awesome relationship of ultimate intimacy between the bridegroom Christ and His church bride (Ephesians 5:22 —> as well as completing the very image of God in man which encompasses both sexes.
There are men and women living in godly victory over same sex attraction. Not that you would want to because you say you don’t believe there’s a God who cares, but there it is.
[/quote]
Reminds me of Paul’s thorn in the flesh.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Unfortunately, my church leaders were wrong. My sexual orientation never changed, and when my wife and I realized that it wasn’t going to happen, we felt divorce was the best option for both of us.
[/quote]
Yeah, I am fond of the Catholic Church’s stance. We don’t have any official teaching on homosexuality being genetic or a choice. However, we can and do concur with the evidence that there is some biological disposition to have same-sex attractions. And, sense all people are called to live a chaste life, if one does not choose to marry (in the traditional sense) whether they be attracted to men or women are called to live a celibate life until they are married.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Slavery 2.0?[/quote]Listen I know you’re kinda new here, but I’ve been over this a thousand times. The state sponsored programs alleged to be helping black people are and have been a soul crushing internal prison whereby generations of blacks are now enslaved in the welfare system that has decimated their families and crushed their hope for the future. Detroit is the sick dying object lesson in this very thing. The church I now go to, which is about 95% black, attracted me in part because they get that. I’m not up to plowing this very old ground again at the moment. Really, nuthin personal.
[/quote]
Gotta link to an old thread?[/quote]This is thge best I can do for now and it isn’t really what I wanted. It’s a PM I sent somebody about black families during the campaign in the spring of 08.
[quote]"This, my friend, is THE, THEEEEEE issue facing blacks. I live 2 blocks from the Detroit city limit, the blackest big city in the United States where the vast majority of children are born out of wedlock, no fathers anywhere though theirs they may be better off without and mothers entirely unequipped to raise them.
I don’t think I ever told this story here so I will now. One of the singularly most memorable conversations of my life.
I spent 7 long miserable years living in New York, Long Island, and for 3 of them in the early nineties I drove deliveries for a non prescription pharmaceutical supplier in NYC, Westchester county and eastern Jersey.
One of my deliveries was a pharmacy on 125th street, ironically also called Martin Luther King Jr. blvd, right across the street form the Apollo Theater. This is Harlem and nary a white face in sight. My first time there I was delivering saline irrigation solutions which are very heavy boxes of bottles of liquid.
This place has one of those doors that no matter how hard you try to throw it open with your foot it closes too fast to get yourself in with a handtruck. The black owner who it turns out was a believer in Jesus Christ, in about his fifties or so, saw me killing myself trying to get that first load through the door and came out to help. He walked out on the street and said to my utter shock, in a loud voice clearly designed to be heard by the crowds all over the sidewalk: I’ll GET THAT FOR YA SON, THESE NIGGERS AIN’T GONNA HELP YOU!!
I kinda sheepishly thanked him and when we got inside he could see the discomfort and puzzlement on my face at what he’d said. He said, don’t mind me, I just really can’t stand what’s become of this place and a conversation ensued.
I wound up in his office with him showing me a picture album of when he was a kid growing up there in the forties and fifties. Children in uniforms lined up at school, family gatherings, church, funerals etc. He was visibly upset. He told me how he remembered when you got smacked in the mouth by your own father if you lipped off to your elders and now kids roam the drug filled streets with guns, parentless and futureless.
It was from him I first heard the statistic that 78% of violent crime in NYC was black on black. He sneered, all I ever hear is how white people are the problem and we’re raping and murdering EACH OTHER. He did all the talking. He said he believed it was the disintegration of the family in the wake of government programs that absolve men of their fatherly responsibilities that largely facilitated this.
He even said he would gladly go back to the days of real institutionalized racism if this were the alternative. I spent about a half hour with him that day, blew my whole delivery schedule and was late for my workout later. I was riveted and a whole bunch of controversial topics lost their controversy for me that day. I’ve never viewed black white relations in this country the same since. We became friendly and he was the only one of any of my stops, black or not, that gave me a Christmas card and a tip along with a hug.
Barack Obama, far FAR from standing for “change we can believe in” represents more and more and more and MORE of the SAME big government crap that got us here in the first place. Racism is an abomination. It needed and needs to be expunged from our national fabric, but we have done all the wrong things to accomplish that and an Obama presidency will be a disastrous latest chapter in that already tragic book."[/quote]
It looks like Joab made the book club thread. Here’s the link. (hope you don’t mind Joab).
And I think it was either Swoleupinya’s or Cortes’s idea to start the thread so thanks to whichever one of them for the idea. May the discussions be fruitful and productive.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Tell me how a homosexual male can have sexual relations with women on a regular basis? Or even once for that matter? How many heterosexual men do you know who regularly have sex with other men? I always found it odd that over 80% of homosexual men have had, or continue to have sex with women. I know, this is another debate, but still nonetheless very strange.[/quote]
Look up the practice of gay-for-pay.