What's new
By:
Filters

Go Warren!

I thought it was about exactly my feelings on the subject until the "assuming you can find one". Denigrating religion is a great way to alienate a pretty solid chunk of voters. Assuming it came from a man was pretty telling too. But there are real people with that exact question. Her answer said that all of those people are nothing but the butt of the inside jokes who deserve to be belittled and insulted. Not a good look actually.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I thought it was about exactly my feelings on the subject until the "assuming you can find one". Denigrating religion is a great way to alienate a pretty solid chunk of voters. Assuming it came from a man was pretty telling too. But there are real people with that exact question. Her answer said that all of those people are nothing but the butt of the inside jokes who deserve to be belittled and insulted. Not a good look actually.
Click to expand...
She assumed he could find one.

That was my favorite part.
 
Stoked said:
Warren is gaining steam.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEMWwAeAH0kORG95TsO4-UTEqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowyNj6CjDyiPICMK_dxAU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

so, does anyone else think that Hillary would be pissed if the first female president is elected right after she ran?
Click to expand...

Im guessing Sanders voter's with concerns about his health defect to Warren not Biden.

Hillary will simply claim that she was the real trail blazer that made it possible for other women to follow in her footsteps. And that without her none of this c ould happen. Realistically you're due a female President can anyone else think of a major western democracy that hasn't had a female leader?

Japan? France? Has Canada? (Not really a significant democracy tho.)
 
LogGrad98 said:
I thought it was about exactly my feelings on the subject until the "assuming you can find one". Denigrating religion is a great way to alienate a pretty solid chunk of voters. Assuming it came from a man was pretty telling too. But there are real people with that exact question. Her answer said that all of those people are nothing but the butt of the inside jokes who deserve to be belittled and insulted. Not a good look actually.
Click to expand...

Its ok to be bigoted against white Christian males according to the left. This shouldnt be a surprise anymore. They dont even deny it.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Its ok to be bigoted against white Christian males according to the left. This shouldnt be a surprise anymore. They dont even deny it.
Click to expand...

It's also OK to be bigoted against the rich and professional athletes. My bigotry doesn't hurt people with social power.
 
One Brow said:
It's also OK to be bigoted against the rich and professional athletes. My bigotry doesn't hurt people with social power.
Click to expand...
So in your personal code of ethics it's fine to be bigoted against people as long as you perceive it doesn't hurt them? Who decides who was hurt? Who decides whose pain matters and whose is fully acceptable? Do you think that white privilege or similar means that individuals deserve some kind of pain?

Note I am not taking relative pain, I'm talking absolute, as perceived by the individual. There will be people hurt and offended by Warren's words regarding religion and men, are they not allowed to feel pain? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if they do or that you just don't care if they do because largely they will be people with privilege? Does they change if it offends someone of some protected class?
 
LogGrad98 said:
So in your personal code of ethics it's fine to be bigoted against people as long as you perceive it doesn't hurt them? Who decides who was hurt? Who decides whose pain matters and whose is fully acceptable? Do you think that white privilege or similar means that individuals deserve some kind of pain?

Note I am not taking relative pain, I'm talking absolute, as perceived by the individual. There will be people hurt and offended by Warren's words regarding religion and men, are they not allowed to feel pain? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if they do or that you just don't care if they do because largely they will be people with privilege? Does they change if it offends someone of some protected class?
Click to expand...


Should people be sympathetic to pain that's caused because someone calls you out saying you can't cause other people pain anymore?
 
One Brow said:
It's also OK to be bigoted against the rich and professional athletes. My bigotry doesn't hurt people with social power.
Click to expand...

See, this bigot doesnt even deny he's a bigot. Even has his own code of bigotry.

You should write a book. Call it, How to be a "good" bigot
 
LogGrad98 said:
What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

"There will be people hurt and offended by Warren's words regarding religion and men, are they not allowed to feel pain?"

Why should I care when those people have used religion and masculinity to cause pain on a grand level?

Why should I care when they perceive pain because they're called out for causing pain?

Why should I care when they feel pain because they can't cause pain?
 
LogGrad98 said:
So in your personal code of ethics it's fine to be bigoted against people as long as you perceive it doesn't hurt them? Who decides who was hurt? Who decides whose pain matters and whose is fully acceptable? Do you think that white privilege or similar means that individuals deserve some kind of pain?

Note I am not taking relative pain, I'm talking absolute, as perceived by the individual. There will be people hurt and offended by Warren's words regarding religion and men, are they not allowed to feel pain? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if they do or that you just don't care if they do because largely they will be people with privilege? Does they change if it offends someone of some protected class?
Click to expand...

How serious do you want to get about a quick reply to a troll? If you're good with acknowledging that my answer was flippant, with some truth behind it but not an attempt to be accurate, that's all I was aiming for.

Assuming you want to dive into this discussion, shall we get into the difference between using deontological, consequentialist, or utilitarian ethics? How about the part where I already pointed out that, "My bigotry doesn't hurt people with social power", indicating that they will not feel pain?

To start, can we agree that causing pain is not always wrong? The Civil Rights movement was very painful for white supremacists. The American Revolution was a painful loss for the British, as was India in the 1940s. Whenever someone has privilege, it will be painful to lose it.
 
One Brow said:
Actually, my inability to cause pain is a major factor in bigotry's degree of acceptability.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Bigotry isn’t ok. Period.

is some bigotry worse than others? Sure, but there’s no degree of acceptability. degrees of unacceptably, I’ll give you that.
 
Stoked said:
I disagree. Bigotry isn’t ok. Period.

is some bigotry worse than others? Sure, but there’s no degree of acceptability. degrees of unacceptably, I’ll give you that.
Click to expand...

@One Brow, while I don’t agree with your pain and acceptability stance.
I feel I’m talking group based and you’re discussing it on a more individual level.

I’ve stated before that not all people or opinions are worth respecting. In that sense we agree. But mine isn’t based on any pain it might cause.
 
Stoked said:
I disagree. Bigotry isn’t ok. Period.

is some bigotry worse than others? Sure, but there’s no degree of acceptability. degrees of unacceptably, I’ll give you that.
Click to expand...

Is that like saying there are not different degrees of heat, just different degrees of coldness?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top