Thanksgiving, My How Things have Changed:

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

The forced relation and enslavement of millions of people (e.g. the transatlantic slave trade, colonization, etc.) don’t count as global problems? They’re local? Local to who? Just what did you mean by `global’? [/quote]

There was no “enslavement of millions” in the US 50-60 years ago.[/quote]

This started out as a discussion about America around the time of the revolution until 50-60 years ago. But don’t worry, claiming that there were no global ethical issues 50-60 years ago is just as silly.

[/quote]

I wonder how many times I’ll have to point out that I fully understand there was immorality 50-60 years ago. We did not live in a moral utopia, nothing of the kind. I’ve said that repeatedly. Why would you bring it up for the 4th time? That is NOT the issue. The issue is the morality of today is far worse than 50-60 years ago and I pointed out exactly why. Now run along you have nothing more to add.

62

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
…for example, petty violent crime and theft have surely been happening all over the world since the dawn of humanity.
[/quote]

True, but petty crime, violent crime and theft on virtually every level has dramatically increased in the US drastically from 1950. Tell me is this because we are morally stronger today?

You’re amusing.

63

ZEB,

Your last two posts clearly show that you cannot follow the flow of conversation. When I said:

[quote]
This started out as a discussion about America around the time of the revolution until 50-60 years ago. But don’t worry, claiming that there were no global ethical issues 50-60 years ago is just as silly.
[\quote]

The key word was GLOBAL. The topic being discussed was no longer whether society today is less moral than it was in the past, but whether the nature of the moral problems faced today is different from the nature of the moral problems faced in the past. (Specifically, whether today we face more ``global’’ issues than in times past.)

Hence your response to my post was completely off topic and missed the entire point.

Now, similar comments go when I said:

[quote]
for example, petty violent crime and theft have surely been happening all over the world since the dawn of humanity.
[\quote]

The topic was not whether the violent crime and theft of today make us less moral, the topic was again whether the nature of present moral problems is different (i.e. global) than in past times. Actually, the real topic of my remarks here was over what makes a moral problem global'' verse local.‘’ kamui seems to have suggested that global'' moral problems are moral problems that are simply found all over the globe. I was pointing out that if that's the definition of a global moral problem,‘’ then kamui’s claim that past moral problems weren’t global is simply false, since violent crime and theft fall under the definition and clearly were present in the past.

Again, your reply to my comments were completely off time.

I think you really need to work on reading comprehension, since you clearly have difficulty following the flow of a dialog.

64

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
ZEB,

Your last two posts clearly show that you cannot follow the flow of conversation. When I said:

This started out as a discussion about America around the time of the revolution until 50-60 years ago. But don’t worry, claiming that there were no global ethical issues 50-60 years ago is just as silly.

The key word was GLOBAL. The topic being discussed was no longer whether society today is less moral than it was in the past, but whether the nature of the moral problems faced today is different from the nature of the moral problems faced in the past. (Specifically, whether today we face more ``global’’ issues than in times past.)

Hence your response to my post was completely off topic and missed the entire point.

Now, similar comments go when I said:

for example, petty violent crime and theft have surely been happening all over the world since the dawn of humanity.

The topic was not whether the violent crime and theft of today make us less moral, the topic was again whether the nature of present moral problems is different (i.e. global) than in past times. Actually, the real topic of my remarks here was over what makes a moral problem global'' verse local.‘’ kamui seems to have suggested that global'' moral problems are moral problems that are simply found all over the globe. I was pointing out that if that's the definition of a global moral problem,‘’ then kamui’s claim that past moral problems weren’t global is simply false, since violent crime and theft fall under the definition and clearly were present in the past.

Again, your reply to my comments were completely off time.

I think you really need to work on reading comprehension, since you clearly have difficulty following the flow of a dialog. [/quote]

And I think you need to understand how the quote function works. As for my reading comprehension it’s great and always has been. You mentioned your global theory to me as well earlier in our debate. I wanted to once again stick a pin in it so you would not be floating that balloon my way any time soon.

Now go figure out the quote function it won’t take long - Go On Now.

65

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for my reading comprehension it’s great and always has been. You mentioned your global theory to me as well earlier in our debate. I wanted to once again stick a pin in it so you would not be floating that balloon my way any time soon.
[/quote]

Clearly your reading comprehension isn’t great, since (1) I never had a global theory,'' - the issue before was how you make overall comparisons, and (2) the issue just being discussed---whether or not the moral problems of today are global’’ in a sense in which there weren’t global moral problems in the past—is completely different from what you call my ``global theory,‘’ whatever the hell that’s suppose to refer to, which was the issue of how to make overall comparisons.

You truly do have terrible reading comprehension. Do you want to try again?

66

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for my reading comprehension it’s great and always has been. You mentioned your global theory to me as well earlier in our debate. I wanted to once again stick a pin in it so you would not be floating that balloon my way any time soon.
[/quote]

Clearly your reading comprehension isn’t great, since (1) I never had a global theory,'' - the issue before was how you make overall comparisons, and (2) the issue just being discussed---whether or not the moral problems of today are global’’ in a sense in which there weren’t global moral problems in the past—is completely different from what you call my ``global theory,‘’ whatever the hell that’s suppose to refer to, which was the issue of how to make overall comparisons.

You truly do have terrible reading comprehension. Do you want to try again? [/quote]

First things first, congratulations on figuring out the quote function. Isn’t nice to be able to work up to the level of the rest of us with these mundane things?

Secondly, you mentioned this nonsense earlier in our debate. You may have called it something else but it was essentially the same thing. I’d go back and quote it but I just don’t care enough to bother, we both know you were talking about it in some form.

Now go on your way junior. Life will catch up to you fast enough and you’ll regret most of the drivel that you’ve spewed.

Ha.

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Secondly, you mentioned this nonsense earlier in our debate. You may have called it something else but it was essentially the same thing. I’d go back and quote it but I just don’t care enough to bother, we both know you were talking about it in some form.

[/quote]

No, I didn’t. Do you honestly not understand the difference between trying to measure the overall morality of a society through comparing their moral and immoral actions (Judging which society is less moral) and characterizing particular moral problems as global verse local (Characterizing immoral actions).

There is only the roughest of homophonic relations between these two sets of issues, the issues aren’t even close to being ``essentially the same thing.‘’

68

The ironic part is that kamui’s suggestion about global vs local moral problems actually addressed the issue I’ve brought up (what makes the moral problems of today worse than in the past? perhaps they’re global, verse local, and that makes them worse), but that subtle point has completely escaped you.

69

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The ironic part is that kamui’s suggestion about global vs local moral problems actually addressed the issue I’ve brought up (what makes the moral problems of today worse than in the past? perhaps they’re global, verse local, and that makes them worse), but that subtle point has completely escaped you.[/quote]

That didn’t escape me, but it was never my primary objective on this thread. And that is something that escaped you, or did you just ignore it because you couldn’t deal with my list of facts that clearly demonstrate why we are a less moral society today than we were 50-60 years ago.

See, trying to change the subject when you look like a clown never works sokey old pal. Now get going, keep moving. Come back when you have a legitimate retort of my original assertion. Or, will you type one more post that evades answering those questions?

70

my great great grandmother first learned about Africa and blacks in school, reading a third republic history book.
when she told that to her parents, they didn’t believe her, and they had to ask the doctor and the priest to confirm the fact.

She never met a black man in her whole lifetime.

and it was not an isolated case.

you may find it hard to believe but for many europeans, the first blacks they have seen were american soldiers in 1945.

we have so many dislocated families precisely because people think they are “an economic issue by and large” rather than a global moral issue.

we have dislocated families because mainstream ideologies condone them and because we actually want them.
or at least because we have desacralized and desocialized marriage.

71

[quote]kamui wrote:
<<< because we have desacralized and desocialized marriage. [/quote]I don’t know what desocialized means here, but you’re getting closer. I am now officially giving up I think on trying to keep up with this forum.

@stokedporcupine8:
You are a clearly intelligent, shallow, uninsightful one note shill with a heart of stone. No, I don’t think I’ll explain that anytime soon (but maybe). I’ve typed volumes in these threads addressing the very tired old academic dirge you are belching forth here. Your generation will likely oversee the end of this nation as anything like it’s founded design. Mark my words.

72

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
<<< because we have desacralized and desocialized marriage. [/quote]I don’t know what desocialized means here, but you’re getting closer. I am now officially giving up I think on trying to keep up with this forum.

@stokedporcupine8:
You are a clearly intelligent, shallow, uninsightful one note shill with a heart of stone. No, I don’t think I’ll explain that anytime soon (but maybe). I’ve typed volumes in these threads addressing the very tired old academic dirge you are belching forth here. Your generation will likely oversee the end of this nation as anything like it’s founded design. Mark my words.[/quote]

No, that was the “greatest generation”.

73

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
<<< because we have desacralized and desocialized marriage. [/quote]I don’t know what desocialized means here, but you’re getting closer. I am now officially giving up I think on trying to keep up with this forum.

@stokedporcupine8:
You are a clearly intelligent, shallow, uninsightful one note shill with a heart of stone. No, I don’t think I’ll explain that anytime soon (but maybe). I’ve typed volumes in these threads addressing the very tired old academic dirge you are belching forth here. Your generation will likely oversee the end of this nation as anything like it’s founded design. Mark my words.[/quote]

No, that was the “greatest generation”. >>>[/quote]If he’s that old then it’s worse than I thought

74

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
<<< because we have desacralized and desocialized marriage. [/quote]I don’t know what desocialized means here, but you’re getting closer. I am now officially giving up I think on trying to keep up with this forum.

@stokedporcupine8:
You are a clearly intelligent, shallow, uninsightful one note shill with a heart of stone. No, I don’t think I’ll explain that anytime soon (but maybe). I’ve typed volumes in these threads addressing the very tired old academic dirge you are belching forth here. Your generation will likely oversee the end of this nation as anything like it’s founded design. Mark my words.[/quote]

No, that was the “greatest generation”. >>>[/quote]If he’s that old then it’s worse than I thought
[/quote]

You had a good run.

75

Things are not exponentially worse now than 60 years ago; our acces to news from around the world exposes us to information that was unavailable then. Worldpopulation was around 2,5 billion in 1950: http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm so what you’re really discussing here is how our perception of the world has changed over time.

76

I’m talking about the United States and our meteoric rise when the populous was of such an ascendant character that they elected men like Washington and rejoiced in messages like the one I posted and the sick perverted violent whorehouse that she is today and sliding further all the time. I will say and stand behind for the ten thousandth time. Every single last problem this country is sinking under is directly spawned by the destruction of the Judeo-Christian ethic as outwardly manifest in the faithful family consisting of one man and one woman with their children for life. EVERY LAST ONE.

For this porcupine guy. I will go so far as to say that a very large segment of blacks in this nation are no better off and in some ways are far worse off under soft socialist slavery v.2.0 today than they were under bodily slavery and oppression in the south. That will be utterly lost on someone like you because gravity of character and strength of heart are foreign concepts in your world beyond an obligatory snippet. It’s tragic, but right in line with the trajectory of the nation especially since the 60’s.

77

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
. . . the sick perverted violent whorehouse that she is today and sliding further all the time. . . . Every single last problem this country is sinking under is directly spawned by the destruction of the Judeo-Christian ethic as outwardly manifest in the faithful family consisting of one man and one woman with their children for life. EVERY LAST ONE.
[/quote]

So look:

  1. All I’ve been arguing is that we are, overall, better today than in the past. You and some others seem to be erroneously inferring from this that I think petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity are good things. Obviously this is a ridiculous inference and I don’t think that.

  2. Thinking that the current moral state of this society can be outwardly gauged by what the society considers a family is ridiculous. Once again you ignore that although family values'' are part of the moral landscape,‘’ there are other important dimensions and factors to consider when judging the morality of a society.

  3. Just what exactly is your claim? Obviously one claim you are making is that we are morally worse today than in the past. But obviously you want to claim more. You want to make some sort of counter factual claim, like if our society today still held onto Judeo-Christian ethics, then there would be less petty violent crime, drug use and sexual promiscuity.'' But even assuming that claim isn't hopelessly vague, it trivializes very serious problems. You're basically saying, Oh, I have all the answers. If only people went to church more, outlaws abortion and started locking up those gays, then our society would get better.‘’ Such claims are hopefully naive and arrogant. You might be able to convince me that we are worse off today than in the past, you won’t convince me that the way to a better society is so simple.

78

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For this porcupine guy. I will go so far as to say that a very large segment of blacks in this nation are no better off and in some ways are far worse off under soft socialist slavery v.2.0 today than they were under bodily slavery and oppression in the south. That will be utterly lost on someone like you because gravity of character and strength of heart are foreign concepts in your world beyond an obligatory snippet. It’s tragic, but right in line with the trajectory of the nation especially since the 60’s.[/quote]

You might try to claim that you’re just stating facts,'' but you are making value judgments in this claim (i.e. that a life in slavery is no worse and in some ways better than a life under socialist slavery.‘’) While you’re not making an moral claim about slavery, the value judgment about slavery you are making is itself disturbing. You have a very skewed sense of good, at least when it comes to `good’ as in good to have'' (a value judgment) as opposed to good to do’’ (a moral judgment).

79

facepalm Oh yeah I forgot 49.5 million souls is fine because the screams are silent!! You remember [i]ABORTION[/i] right?! I thought there was better morals these days compared to 50 years ago??

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Did you say they were better 50-60 years ago? Pretty sure that was the generation that managed to start a world war. That’s over 60 million lives. Painful, horrible, spiteful deaths.[/quote]

I didn’t see this point addressed earlier in the thread, my apologies if it was = ]

80

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m talking about the United States and our meteoric rise when the populous was of such an ascendant character that they elected men like Washington and rejoiced in messages like the one I posted and the sick perverted violent whorehouse that she is today and sliding further all the time. I will say and stand behind for the ten thousandth time. Every single last problem this country is sinking under is directly spawned by the destruction of the Judeo-Christian ethic as outwardly manifest in the faithful family consisting of one man and one woman with their children for life. EVERY LAST ONE.

For this porcupine guy. I will go so far as to say that a very large segment of blacks in this nation are no better off and in some ways are far worse off under soft socialist slavery v.2.0 today than they were under bodily slavery and oppression in the south. That will be utterly lost on someone like you because gravity of character and strength of heart are foreign concepts in your world beyond an obligatory snippet. It’s tragic, but right in line with the trajectory of the nation especially since the 60’s.[/quote]

Was it really all that better?