Atheism is Evil - Page 22 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014123
Anasawad wrote:These radicals will keep using these buzz words until it loses all of its meaning.
Nowadays, the words sexist, racist, misogyny, bigotry, prejudice, oppression, slavery, fascism, and even Nazi have pretty much lost their meaning since 'they' call everyone who disagrees with them these things.

If everyone is a Nazi, then the word Nazi means nothing. If everyone is sexist, racist, etc then no one is.
No, this is patently false. These words are being used properly to describe behaviors, and what people say. It's very rare for a person to be called a racist or even Nazi, unless they are actively promoting those ideas. The right-wing just wants gullible people to believe that they are being used indiscriminately, so they can have carte blanche when it come to expression their odious ideas.

On this forum, when you see someone called a racist, it's after they say some stupidly racist shit. Nazi? After they sit there supporting Nazis for pages on end. It's simple and it's obvious.
By SolarCross
#15014126
@Godstud
Did you even read the post that @anasawad commented on? @SSDR just called @Truth To Power a nazi twice. Do you seriously mean to claim that @Truth To Power is an actual goosestepping state-worshipping fuhrer-loving nazi? :lol:
By anasawad
#15014130
@Godstud
It's right up there.
In response to saying he is a centrist who doesn't fully agree with either capitalists or socialists and supports liberty and justice, he was called a Nazi.
In response to hem clarifying that not everything is slavery and that it's not good to broaden the term so much it loses the meaning, he is accused of supporting slavery.
(Which by the way, I do agree with that, we have these many categories because broadening the meaning of the word slavery diminishes the horrors it entails)
And I've seen this many many times, whether here on PoFo, or Youtube, or mainstream media, or politics. And not only on western sites and channels, even here these movements are catching on.
Throwing the words Nazi or sexist or racist on everything is not good, and it is being done by many radical left wing activists nowadays.

If someone said for example the Africans at the moment have lower IQ on average than the rest of the world. That's not a racist statement, it's a statistical observation.
If it was followed by the reasons why these numbers are like that, e.g. constant threat and danger due to wars, poverty, lack of education, lack of nutrition, etc. Then it's not racist.
If, however, it was followed by a justification of: "it's because they're black", then it's racist.

However what we do see is that regardless of the context, the person is called a racist just for noting these statistics.

In this thread I've been called a sexist and other things, why? for pointing out that men and women do have biological and psychological differences that does influence their behavior and preferences and supporting the equal but different principle, as well as putting a factual statement that families are not "oppressive" or "anti women", but rather a natural part of evolution as mammals since family structures do indeed exist all over the mammalian world and it is a mammalian instinct.

Just read the conversation, and tell me if you can find a place where it is sexism or whatever with justification for why it would be. You wont. I checked.
But ,nonetheless, here we are.
You can go around the entire internet, social media, and mainstream media, and you'll find the same thing everywhere.
These words are just thrown around for any disagreement.

That is a major problem that should be addressed. It's not a joke.
If everything is sexist, then no one will take it seriously in cases of actual sexism.
If everything is racist, then no one will take it seriously in cases of actual racism.
If you throw around the word fascist everywhere, then no one will react sufficiently when actual fascists show up.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014132
Solarcross wrote:@Godstud
Did you even read the post that @anasawad commented on? @SSDR just called @Truth To Power a nazi twice. Do you seriously mean to claim that @Truth To Power is an actual goosestepping state-worshipping fuhrer-loving nazi? :lol:
No, and I do not care, as SSDR is quite the radical(my opinion only), and this is not the norm.

@anasawad noemon posted something about this on another thread. I mentioned you in that thread, to point it out to you. It applies quite well to this conversation.
By anasawad
#15014135
@Godstud
No, and I do not care, as SSDR is quite the radical(my opinion only), and this is not the norm.

And radicals are increasing in number on both the far left and far right, and that is a problem that should be addressed.

noemon posted something about this on another thread. I mentioned you in that thread, to point it out to you. It applies quite well to this conversation.


The statement I was noting was just his last statement and response to it, I did not read the entire conversation, just the last two posts which I commented on.
But it doesn't have to be his, I was called the same. Where is the sexism and misogyny in my posts?

And I've seen these radical feminist activists in action in Minsk, and online they give an endless supply of examples for this misuse of terms.

From the other thread:
I think it applies to your comment on another thread about people using words like Nazi and racist.

I do understand there is a cultural connotation in some countries, I don't necessarily know what it is but I do know some sensitivities exist.
But, nonetheless, we're arguing online on an international forum, and local sites are rare since most are international. So the discussion and statements within it should be taken on its own merits regardless of the cultural and societal connotation of the one who said it.
Last edited by anasawad on 25 Jun 2019 01:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014139
anasawad wrote:And radicals are increasing in number on both the far left and far right, and that is a problem that should be addressed.
It's easy to see when someone calling someone a racist, is unfounded. How do you suggest we address this problem? Do we stop calling racist people racists, simply because some people use it uncorrectly?

On the flip side, some people call the people who criticize Israel anti-semitic. It's not, of course.

anasawad wrote:Where is the sexism and misogyny in my posts?
When I mentioned it, I was not picking on you in particular, even though some of what you said was indeed sexist. The others posted the misogynistic things. I was generalizing, at the time.

anasawad wrote:And I've seen these radical feminist activists in action in Minsk, and online they give an endless supply of examples for this misuse of terms.
You can go anywhere and see this, but as you see, it's mostly the radicals who can't differentiate. You get the same with the RWSJW (Right Wing Social Justice Warriors), who call LGBTQ people "alphabet people" simply to be belligerent.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15014140
Godstud wrote:It's easy to see when someone calling someone a racist, is unfounded. How do you suggest we address this problem? Do we stop calling racist people racists, simply because some people use it uncorrectly?



Oh, please look around. Racism has gone down a lot and continues to go down. The issue is that the media publishes
racism 24/7 and gullible people fall for that sort of thing.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014141
I do look around and I do not see what you see.

Racism is as alive as ever in the USA, and more visible than ever.

What is wrong with identifying racism, when you see it? Do you want to hide racism behind a false facade?
By anasawad
#15014142
@Godstud
It's easy to see when someone calling someone a racist, is unfounded. How do you suggest we address this problem? Do we stop calling racist people racists, simply because some people use it uncorrectly?

I won't claim to have a solution, however we can start by correcting and calling the misuse when it's the case to atleast preserve the meaning of words.
For a full solution, I'm sure many more qualified people than me will figure one out and I'll gladly walk along.

When I mentioned it, I was not picking on you in particular, even though some of what you said was indeed sexist. The others posted the misogynistic things. I was generalizing, at the time.


And that's the problem I have, which is why I responded to you and clarified.
I don't believe any of what I said was sexist. In lines of work, some fields both men and women perform equally in that each individual performance is determined by the skills, education, expertise, etc of that individual irregardless of gender.
On the other hand, there are fields where men, on average, perform better due to their biology, particularly physical labor and the such; All while other fields women, on average, perform better, also do to their biology, particularly fields regarding care, and they do in care due to the inherit motherly instinct ingrained in females in general which makes women, on average (not all), better than men in this regard.

I did also mention marketing and sales, which I wont say all, but rather average and not all again, and I figured it is that way since women do represent a disproportionate percentage of these fields in most countries. I assume this is due to neoteny and other factors, but I will have to do more reading on it to specify all the factors regarding why this disparity is in place.
(Which is why I didn't delve much into these)


I don't see how this argument is sexist. There is no prejudice or any such thing in it.

You can go anywhere and see this, but as you see, it's mostly the radicals who can't differentiate. You get the same with the RWSJW (Right Wing Social Justice Warriors), who call LGBTQ people "alphabet people" simply to be belligerent.

And that is something to be addressed, not to be ignored.
#15014158
Speaking of atheism and racism:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... and-racism

    Secularism, Religion, and Racism
    Who is more likely to be racist, the strongly religious or the strongly secular?
    Posted Aug 20, 2014

    Who is more likely to be racist: strongly religious people or strongly secular people?

    Let’s first consider each group’s basic worldview or belief system concerning the nature of people.

    According to the strongly religious, we humans are all God’s children. A few thousand years ago, an invisible, magic Being made Adam and then Eve, and we are all the descendants of these two first humans. And thus—despite our various ethnic, racial, or phenotypical differences—we are all one. We are all brothers and sisters, given that we all have the same divine progenitor: God. Such a belief should clearly render racism untenable.

    According to the strongly secular, we humans are the descendants of preexisting primates. Many hundreds of thousands of years ago, through the processes of random mutation and natural selection, humans evolved out of earlier primates. Grounded upon extensive scientific evidence, the reality of our evolutionary past illustrates that we are all in fact one species; despite various ethnic, racial, or phenotypical differences, we are all brothers and sisters, sharing the same genetic inheritance and makeup. Such a fact should clearly render racism untenable.

    There is thus some nice agreement—between religious and secular—when it comes to the “oneness” of humanity. Although based upon completely different perspectives, both worldviews agree that racial distinctions are ultimately insignificant, or at least should be. Skin color, hair texture, eye shape, nose shape, etc.—such trivialities should not be a basis to separate humanity into distinct or different groups, nor should they determine character, morality, or potential. Racism is thus not only pernicious and unloving, but intrinsically at odds with both orientations.

    And yet, despite the potential for human unity and oneness within both the strongly religious and the strongly secular perspectives, social science reveals that the religious worldview actually fails to “click” with many religious people, especially the strongly religious, who are much more likely to be racist than the strongly secular.

    In his latest analysis of 40 years of aggregate data from the General Social Survey (see his book Changing Faith, 2014), sociologist Darren Sherkat reveals that strongly religious Americans are far more likely to support laws against interracial marriage than secular Americans; indeed 45 percent of Baptists and 38 percent of sectarian Protestants (conservative Evangelicals) support laws against interracial marriage, but only 11 percent of secular people do. And while 26 percent of Baptists and 21 percent of conservative Evangelicals state that they would not vote for an African American for president, only 9.5 percent of secular/non-religious people state as much.

    Sherkat’s analysis is no outlier. He’s found what many others have found: that the more religious a person is, the more likely he are she is going to be racist, and the less religious he or she is, the less likely.

    Consider perhaps the most definitive study on this question ever published. In a landmark analysis titled “Why Don’t We Practice What We Preach: A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism,” Duke University professor Deborah Hall and associates carefully analyzed 55 separate studies in order to reveal the relationship between religion, irreligion, and racism. And the most pertinent finding was that strongly religious Americans tend to be the most racist, moderately religious Americans tend to be less racist, and yet the group of Americans found to be the least racist of all are secular Americans, particularly those espousing an agnostic orientation.

    As psychologists Ralph Hood, Peter Hill, and Bernard Spilka have noted, in their comprehensive The Psychology of Religion, and basing their assessment upon decades of research, “as a broad generalization, the more religious an individual is, the more prejudiced that person is.”

    Perhaps this helps explain why secular white people were more likely than religious white people to support the Civil Rights Movement, or why secular Americans today take a more accepting/generous attitude towards immigrants of color than religious Americans, or why secular white South Africans were more likely to be against Apartheid than religious white South Africans, or why secular Israelis today are more likely to support the human rights of Palestinians than religious Israelis.

    Of course, this whole matter of religiosity-secularity-racism is only a correlation. We certainly cannot conclude that religion causes racism, or that secularism somehow makes racism magically disappear. We know that there are many secular people who are racist to varying degrees, and there are many religious people who don’t internalize racism, and resist and fight against it with all their hearts. Racism within the secular community needs to be acknowledged, confronted, and diluted. And humanistic, anti-racism within religious communities needs to be lauded, echoed, and supported.

    But the correlation still stands. When it comes to racism, it is more likely to be found among the religious, and less likely among the secular. Whether this has to do with our differing belief systems and worldviews, or sociological factors such educational attainment, socio-economic status, and rural/urban demography, or a host of other possibilities, needs to be better understood.

So, it turns out that theists are more likely to be racists than their irreligious siblings.

But wait, it gets more complicated:

https://www.bartduriez.com/sites/defaul ... sebaut.pdf

    The relation between religion and racism: the role of post-critical beliefs
    B. DURIEZ & D. HUTSEBAUT
    Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    ABSTRACT
    The relation between religion and racism has often been studied, but summarising these studies provides a fragmented picture. Generally, American research concludes there is a positive relation, whereas research in the Low Countries concludes this relation is negative. However, the conclusions of the latter research tradition might be premature, because inaccurate religiosity measures were used. The results of this study suggest that both frequency of church attendance and belief salience are no longer significantly related to racism. Four religious attitudes are described, based on individuals inclusion or exclusion of transcendence, and preference for symbolic or literal interpretation. Orthodoxy (literal, transcendent) and External Critique (literal, non-transcendent) were significantly positively related to racism, whereas Relativism (symbolic, non-transcendent) was significantly negatively related to it. Second Naïveté (symbolic, transcendent) at first sight turned out not to be significantly related to racism. However; a path analysis—in which some important background variables such as age and education were included—suggested the existence of an indirect negative relation. Overall it looks as if the privatisation of religion has reached new heights. Thus nowadays, studies of the relation between religion and racism need to focus on the cognitive (rather than behavioural) aspects of how people deal with the religious realm.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15014218
Godstud wrote:I do look around and I do not see what you see.

Racism is as alive as ever in the USA, and more visible than ever.

What is wrong with identifying racism, when you see it? Do you want to hide racism behind a false facade?


If you are obsessed about your crooked nose you check out the noses of everybody and you discover a lot of crooked noses.
If you are not paying attention to crooked noses you only see a few here and there.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014231
No one is obsessed with anything. Recognizing it, when it occurs, is obviously something you are incapable of. :knife:

It's a matter of saying, "It's raining.", when it rains. You don't say, "It's raining.", when it's not.

Your metaphor was idiotic.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15014234
Godstud wrote:No one is obsessed with anything. Recognizing it, when it occurs, is obviously something you are incapable of. :knife:

It's a matter of saying, "It's raining.", when it rains. You don't say, "It's raining.", when it's not.

Your metaphor was idiotic.


OK, let me give you an example:

Cops shoot more white people than black people and yet there is the perception that blacks are preferentially shot.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014236
A study carried out at the University of California found "evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans compared to unarmed white Americans".[1] In this study, the probability of being shot by the police as a black, unarmed person versus as a white, unarmed person was 3.49 times higher. Unarmed Hispanics' likelihood to be shot was 1.67 times higher than for unarmed Whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_bias
By Truth To Power
#15014238
Julian658 wrote:OK, let me give you an example:

Cops shoot more white people than black people and yet there is the perception that blacks are preferentially shot.

And that perception may or may not be valid, depending on a number of factors. How many black people are there compared to white people? How many violent crimes does each race commit? How many interactions with police does each race have? In what fraction of police interactions is each race a known criminal? In what fraction of such interactions does each race have a weapon? A firearm? Etc.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15014242
Truth To Power wrote:And that perception may or may not be valid, depending on a number of factors. How many black people are there compared to white people? How many violent crimes does each race commit? How many interactions with police does each race have? In what fraction of police interactions is each race a known criminal? In what fraction of such interactions does each race have a weapon? A firearm? Etc.


All that data is available.

The problem is that American cops are trained to shoot right away if there is any perception of danger to them. The cops are poorly trained.

There are many videos of white people that are executed by cops if you search for them. The media never shows these executions because the victims are white.

Here is a video of one of the whitest man in America------- Watch how he was murdered:

White man murdered by a cop

Here is another man of Nordic origin being shot while moribund on the ground: Forward to 1:50 to see the murder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3kJg6rNVz8&has_verified=1

The media was silent about these cases. BTW, there are plenty more if you care to look.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15014243
Godstud wrote:A study carried out at the University of California found "evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans compared to unarmed white Americans".[1] In this study, the probability of being shot by the police as a black, unarmed person versus as a white, unarmed person was 3.49 times higher. Unarmed Hispanics' likelihood to be shot was 1.67 times higher than for unarmed Whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_bias


Looking at those results does not mean racism. That would be like saying the NBA is 90% black therefore there is discrimination against white basketball players. It does not work that way.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15014247
Julian658 wrote:Looking at those results does not mean racism. That would be like saying the NBA is 90% black therefore there is discrimination against white basketball players. It does not work that way.
:roll: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a platypus??


More white than black people are shot. It is important to distinguish to differentiate between the number of deaths of an ethnic group and the likelihood of being shot by police.The likelihood of being shot as a black rather than a white person is higher, whether the victim is armed or not.
By Truth To Power
#15014248
SSDR wrote:In socialism, everyone has an equal chance in their lives.

Like the naked mole rats, who all have equal opportunity to eat each other's feces.
"Legal entitlements to benefit" doesn't exist in socialism

You will pardon me for being skeptical about what you claim does and doesn't exist in socialism.
because that economically promotes the family institution via inheritance.

Inheritance doesn't require privilege.
"Above" meaning socially, economically, politically, and culturally.

Then men are below women in our culture: they do worse in school, they are ten times as likely to be in jail, they die earlier, they cast fewer votes, they are three times as likely to commit suicide and four times as likely to be murdered, etc., etc.
Men are manipulated to act tough, while women are manipulated to act submissive, and emotional.

It's not manipulation. It's biology. Hormones. DNA. All the same sexual dimorphisms and consequent sex role differences are observed in our closest primate relatives. Socialists have just never come to terms with Darwin.
In lesser advanced economics, women have to rely on male fathers or male husbands due to how the obsolete economics are set up.

It's socialism that is obsolete -- except for socialist naked mole rats happily feeding on each other's feces, of course.
There are not a lot of female politicians.

Or female prison inmates. And for much the same reasons: the difference in value placed on status, dominance, and power vs affiliation, safety, and relationships.
Women in politics wasn't common until the mid 20th century.

And it's because most women know better than to go into electoral politics, which is brutally demanding, dirty and competitive.
Margot Honecker (one of the best people to ever live) is a great example of someone who would go against patriarchy politically.

You mean the Minister of Forcible Communist Indoctrination and Thought Control??
The false definition of slavery that you have shows that your statements are false.

The definition I gave is accurate.
Slavery is when one human is OWNED by another human.

No, that's only chattel slavery. There are also, e.g., penal slavery, military slavery, etc., which do not involve ownership. You are, as usual, just objectively wrong. OBJECTIVELY.
It doesn't have to involve direct force.

Yes, it does.
Religion, family faith, and certain cultural norms existed in the past to prevent the masses from gaining real consciousness (slaves supporting slavery).

That is not slavery.
You are attempting to redefine slavery so that you can teach people that some kinds of slavery are not slavery.

No, you are redefining it so that you can call things slavery that are not slavery.
And here is an example: Human trafficking is a kind of slavery.

No it isn't, unless labor is compelled by force.
Exploitation is a kind of slavery.

No it isn't, unless labor is compelled by force.
Eating another's feces is not an example of socialism.

Yes, it is. Naked mole rats are the only known example of socialist mammals, and they eat each other's feces.
There is a difference between private property, and personal property. You do not know that, so you cannot criticize socialism if you do not know it.

I am aware of the socialist distinction, and why it is a red herring.
And comparing humans to rats is not useful.

In this case, it's very illuminating.
If someone deceived you into supporting slavery, would you support slavery?

That's a tautology.
Each individual is different. You cannot stereotype each sex individually because you do know know every single human.

That's pretty rich coming from a socialist who advocates Procrustean egalitarianism.
You're a Nazi.

You just disqualified yourself from serious discussion.
You're using science to politically go against capitalism and socialism.

Correct.
Mixing emotional terms such as "evil" with non emotional subjects such as science is a Nazi act.

You just confirmed your disqualification from serious discussion. And emotions are also an appropriate object of scientific inquiry.
Different political ideologies have different views on what is evil.

And some are correct, while others are incorrect.
What is your definition of "evil?"

I just gave it: deliberate abrogation of others' rights with intent to inflict injustice, and rationalization of such acts.
You're imposing bullshit Social constructs that were created to control the masses.

In chimpanzee society as in human society? REALLY???
Your impositions cannot work since you support slavery, and others like myself don't.

Your absurd ad hominem accusations disqualify you from serious discussion.
You're a Nazi who supports human trafficking.

You again reconfirm your disqualification from serious discussion.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15014270
@Truth To Power.

Like the naked mole rats, who all have equal opportunity to eat each other's feces.

This is not a political statement.
You will pardon me for being skeptical about what you claim does and doesn't exist in socialism.

You are opinionating about the false characteristics of a socialist economy.
Inheritance doesn't require privilege.

In a non socialist economy, inheritance is a privilege because not everyone can have inheritance in a non socialist economy. Some people also get more than others (rich children versus children born in homelessness).
Then men are below women in our culture: they do worse in school, they are ten times as likely to be in jail, they die earlier, they cast fewer votes, they are three times as likely to commit suicide and four times as likely to be murdered, etc., etc.

That's because you're not in a Nazi country.
It's not manipulation. It's biology. Hormones. DNA. All the same sexual dimorphisms and consequent sex role differences are observed in our closest primate relatives. Socialists have just never come to terms with Darwin.

It's social norms and you don't realize that because you're a Nazi.

Socialism is the most advanced form of economics. In socialism, no woman's life is dependent on a man's.

You believing that women prior to the 20th century being smarter than now is very alarming and reactionary. Non socialist politics is demanding because of its money oriented atmosphere and due to higher rates of testosterone.

This is not a political statement.

You're not engaging in a political discussion by calling someone "wrong."

Human trafficking is a type of slavery you Nazi.

How do you feel about Nazism?

This is not a political discussion. This is an aggressive statement. What ideology do you need to motivate you to work?

You believing that humans are chimpanzees or rats is not realistic.

This is a Nazi, human trafficking supporting viewpoint on what reality is. You believing that humans are rats is not a political statement.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
Israelis nervous about BDS

Arabs may have Palestine only if israel allows it[…]

Supplemental reading in this thread: Consciousness[…]

Consciousness as content.

In the Age of AI (full film) | FRONTLINE https://w[…]

Trump and Russiagate

The burden of proof isn't on Trump. Nobody has to[…]