Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:00 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169775 wrote:
I've enjoyed your posts quite a bit, but I must say that the racial element would better be expressed in cultural terms. I don't think I'm coming from a PC place here. Yes, the cultural issue is directly related to racial associations -- I won't deny that. What do these idolized rappers have in common? I mention rappers because I feel this is more accurate than your mention of pimps. The rapper is rich and a warrior. Obviously, the rapper is often neither in real life, but this is the image for sale. Of course woman-as-object is indeed a part of this. B*tches and H*s, etc. It reminds me of societies described by Herodotus. The ideal man has youth, money, bullet-wound scars, pecs, and a harem of quarter-dressed sex workers....
This reminds me of an exaggeration of the usual advertisement with an added glorification of violence. But this is mirrored generally in videogames and movies. The nerdy little white boys, who have never been in a fight, are pulling imaginary triggers all the time, I think. A virtual coliseum.

I do think the moral and the economic issues are very much intertwined. Perhaps rap-culture must exaggerate the violence element because its consumers live closer to the violent neighborhoods and therefore want to make a virtue of necessity. Rather than simply confessing an envy of the Banker, the flavor of authentic-macho-violence is added to the ideal. It's very hard for anyone to view themselves as someone on the bottom.



I mention race explicitly because the widespread glorification of the backwardness and anti-morality of black culture and the erosion of the ideal of man as an economic creature (the ideal of the calculating, individualism that is at the heart of classical liberalism and traditional Anglo-American culture) go hand in hand; they happened at the same time. I could just as easily cited rock and roll music and drug use. What these things have in common and why I mention them explicitly is because they are antithetical to the work ethic and the ideal of thrift and scientific engineering and manufacturing and all the things that classical liberalism, limited constitutional government and free markets stand for.

I also stated that Hollywood, the Universities, the mainstream media and government offer anti-morality of all sorts. So its not just the immorality of black culture (though I see no reason to leave it out), but also the example of Keynsian economics and even unnecessary, unaffordable wars.

Let me be clear: black culture, and hyper-vulgarity in general, is the indisputable winner of history. Americans are no longer thrifty savers and producers. The ideal within classical liberalism of man as fundamentally a calculating animal is dead. The rust belt is real. The trade deficit is real. The debt is real. The addiction to personal indebtedness is real. The pornography is real. The fact that America is a bankrupt nation is real.


I will stick to my assertion that there are consequences of the glorification of black culture as well as the glorification of third world cesspools and many other things that now actually define who we are as a people. Just as there are consequence to being a drug addict or an alcoholic.



The American people are an immoral people today, there is no doubt about that; And they are in debt way over their heads, there is no doubt about that either.

My position is that it is impossible to reform America. But allow me to state the reasons why I believe this, personal prejudices notwithstanding.
-
cogitoergo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 07:57 pm
@Pythagorean,
I think that more specifically, you mean to address "thug culture" and not black culture as a whole. It is a bit racist to presume that black culture is composed of pimps and hoes and the search for the almighty dollar. However it is pertinent to note that these subcultures are symptomatic of a repressive and materialistic American culture that teaches young poor black people that the only way to make it out of poverty is to be a rapper or a basketball player.
But back to the discussion at hand, why do you think that it impossible to reform America, and also, what particular immoralities do you find to be standing in the path of this "reformation?"
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 02:50 pm
@cogitoergo,
cogitoergo;169804 wrote:
I think that more specifically, you mean to address "thug culture" and not black culture as a whole.


How about mixing thug culture with world historically high illegitimacy rates, semi-illiteracy, public school sponsored racism (hating white skin), high levels of violence and socialist-oriented politics. Is that any better? Even if those problems are my fault, as I am sure you will insist, are they not still real problems? And if they are real problems then why is it racist to simply state the unvarnished truth?


Quote:
It is a bit racist to presume that black culture is composed of pimps and hoes and the search for the almighty dollar.
It may be a factual mistake to presume such a thing but I don't see what precisely makes it racist. Of course, nobody said such a thing in the first place - this is something you invented.


Quote:
However it is pertinent to note that these subcultures are symptomatic of a repressive and materialistic American culture that teaches young poor black people that the only way to make it out of poverty is to be a rapper or a basketball player.

There are laws against oppression and these laws are strictly enforced with great penalties. There is no such oppression of blacks from without. The fault lies within the black community.



Quote:
But back to the discussion at hand, why do you think that it impossible to reform America, and also, what particular immoralities do you find to be standing in the path of this "reformation?"

As I said, the glorification of rap music, which is a typical, particular immoral, or anti-moral, movement.

-
cogitoergo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 09:46 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;170483 wrote:
How about mixing thug culture with world historically high illegitimacy rates, semi-illiteracy, public school sponsored racism (hating white skin), high levels of violence and socialist-oriented politics. Is that any better? Even if those problems are my fault, as I am sure you will insist, are they not still real problems? And if they are real problems then why is it racist to simply state the unvarnished truth?

Isn't it more likely that high illegitimacy rates (which I presume you are referring to childbirth out of wedlock), violence, and semi-literacy are symptomatic of poverty in general? According to the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, 8.6% of non-Hispanic whites were impoverished while 24.7% of blacks were impoverished.

And also we must note that the reasons for such a high poverty rate are largely the results of black history in America. After Emancipation, it isn't as if African Americans all of the sudden gained equal footing. In the beginning, they were forcibly uneducated and poor. They were repressed by institutions like unregulated sharecropping and Jim Crow laws. In the generations to follow, black Americans could not get ahead for almost a century as a result institutionalized racism in schools and public places. Black people have had fully equal rights for less than fifty years.

It's a long, hard road out of poverty and subjugation. This certainly does not absolve black people of the necessary personal responsibility to rise above their own situation. This does not excuse the prevalence of the gangster subculture. And, these problems are certainly not your fault, nor any other singular individual's fault. However, I don't find it appropriate to refer to black culture as hyper-vulgar, when instead it is the subculture of impoverished and ignorant materialists that you are really referring to. To do so unfairly disregards the entirety of black culture and is disrespectful to black people.

Also, I feel like this statement presupposes that there exists public school sponsored racism and also that socialist-oriented politics are a necessarily negative thing. Could you please justify these arguments?


Pythagorean;170483 wrote:
There are laws against oppression and these laws are strictly enforced with great penalties. There is no such oppression of blacks from without. The fault lies within the black community.


There aren't laws against "oppression." There are laws against many forms of racial discrimination and violence based on race. But this does not eliminate the effects of racism from individuals in positions of power, for example, school administrators. Oppression is often a social or economic issue that can't simply be resolved through legislation. Once again, black people do hold fault in many senses, but this does not mean that our society does not have a racially repressive mechanism.



Pythagorean;170483 wrote:
As I said, the glorification of rap music, which is a typical, particular immoral, or anti-moral, movement.


True, one could easily argue that rap music is "immoral," but that is very subjective. On top of that, there are innumerable counterexamples. Hip-hop is like any other mainstream musical genre, complete with many artists who are shameful and many other artists who are positive. It isn't an inherently anti-moral movement. This seems to also be an unfair generalization.

Also, I feel like I don't understand exactly what you are defining as "public immorality." Could you elaborate on that, and the effects you believe it has on society?
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:12 pm
@cogitoergo,
cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
Isn't it more likely that high illegitimacy rates (which I presume you are referring to childbirth out of wedlock), violence, and semi-literacy are symptomatic of poverty in general? According to the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, 8.6% of non-Hispanic whites were impoverished while 24.7% of blacks were impoverished.


The assertion that these pathologies are related to poverty is wrong on its face. Knowledge of right and wrong is not a commodity to be purchased, it comes from common sense.

Before the black violence revolution, before the sixties sex and drug revolution, most poor people in America knew the difference between right and wrong and there was at that time in history no correlation between poverty rates and such pathologies. I myself grew up poor but my mother, who came from the South taught us the common sense distinctions between what is right and wrong. It was only after the black violence/black power revolution of the sixties that poverty in general became correlated with social ills.

It seems to me that you are willfully ignoring the type of culture that is spewing out from the black community. Have you listened to black music? The types of ideas there are on a level with third world ideologies of incredible violence, drug use and dealing, but also pornographic ideas and a pure hatred of white people to such an extent that to willfully ignore it is to excuse it and to invite in into the mainstream of American culture which is what exactly has been happening to the long term shame and debasement of our social capital.

It should be no secret that a white skinned person can never, ever venture into an all black community without thereby risking his very life. To ignore these basic facts is so ridiculous and shameful. It excuses all types of behaviour and attitudes. It legitimizes the worse characteristics of human existence. In my opinion, you are a shameful apologist for these real racists of the black community because you willfully ignore these most obvious and damning truths.


The real impoverishment is the impoverishment of the soul by pimp culture and the like. And this is precisely the type of impoverishment that is sanctioned and condoned by willfully ignoring it on the faulty basis of civil rights claims etc.

cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
And also we must note that the reasons for such a high poverty rate are largely the results of black history in America. After Emancipation, it isn't as if African Americans all of the sudden gained equal footing. In the beginning, they were forcibly uneducated and poor. They were repressed by institutions like unregulated sharecropping and Jim Crow laws. In the generations to follow, black Americans could not get ahead for almost a century as a result institutionalized racism in schools and public places. Black people have had fully equal rights for less than fifty years.


It doesn't follow that because they have been mistreated long ago that it is now acceptable to rename 'Woman' as 'Whore'. It doesn't follow that due to the past it is now acceptable to destroy whatever good is left in society by willfully ignoring the plague of anti-morality and life destroying ideology that comes out of the black community but has spread to the whole society at large.

Think of what you are saying. Because blacks were once discriminated against now ever-increasing immorality on a vast scale is acceptable. The immorality has gotten worse since the sixties, since their legal protections were passed into law, not better. What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. You don't seem to be aware of the increasing levels of vulgarity in American culture over even the last decade, let alone the increase since blacks were granted legal concessions of all sorts.




cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
It's a long, hard road out of poverty and subjugation. This certainly does not absolve black people of the necessary personal responsibility to rise above their own situation. This does not excuse the prevalence of the gangster subculture. And, these problems are certainly not your fault, nor any other singular individual's fault. However, I don't find it appropriate to refer to black culture as hyper-vulgar, when instead it is the subculture of impoverished and ignorant materialists that you are really referring to. To do so unfairly disregards the entirety of black culture and is disrespectful to black people.



It's a little late to be worried about me disrespecting the black community. Any person with even a scintilla of decency would disrespect both the entire black and the Hispanic communities on moral grounds not to mention the mainstream pornographic media, the socialist public school systems in every large city in America and the government workers unions etc. You are ignoring the real dangers of immorality and the dramatic loss of social capital to the society.



cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
Also, I feel like this statement presupposes that there exists public school sponsored racism and also that socialist-oriented politics are a necessarily negative thing. Could you please justify these arguments?


There is no difference between your attitude and the teaching of the public schools. You both condone and celebrate levels of immorality that would make a third world dictator blush.




cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
There aren't laws against "oppression." There are laws against many forms of racial discrimination and violence based on race. But this does not eliminate the effects of racism from individuals in positions of power, for example, school administrators. Oppression is often a social or economic issue that can't simply be resolved through legislation. Once again, black people do hold fault in many senses, but this does not mean that our society does not have a racially repressive mechanism.


You should talk to sensible black people. Because they are aware that white society is no longer racist in the least. As the late Samuel Huntington once asked "Who Are We?" (He got no reply, just more Political Correctness on the part of the white majority). And they are aware that almost all black people harbour a hatred of white people that is hyper-vulgar, hyper-violent, and disgusting in the extreme. You simply do not know of what you speak. You are not street wise.





cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
True, one could easily argue that rap music is "immoral," but that is very subjective. On top of that, there are innumerable counterexamples. Hip-hop is like any other mainstream musical genre, complete with many artists who are shameful and many other artists who are positive. It isn't an inherently anti-moral movement. This seems to also be an unfair generalization.


You simply do not recognize any meaningful difference between right and wrong, in my opinion. You don't seem to know why a society should be vigilant and stamp out immorality while it has a chance. You are a typical mainstream liberal.

cogitoergo;170844 wrote:
Also, I feel like I don't understand exactly what you are defining as "public immorality." Could you elaborate on that, and the effects you believe it has on society?



You should study the mores of developing nations who rush to stamp out any outbreaks of immorality as if it were a dangerous fire or plague.

It is far too late to save America from the cesspool she is living in. The great taboo in America is that her once decent people are now immoral. And you can try to separate the economic sphere from the cesspool of the public sphere all you want. I know with all my heart that the two can not be separated. You need to re-read my opening to this thread that began with the debt crisis.

-
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 09:22 pm
@Pythagorean,
I forgot to ask;
Is it moral to pay?
Is payment morality?

What can we gain by purchase and what can we lose by disowning?

Once owned is there any such thing as a refund?
What is the morality or ethic concerning a blooming refund?
0 Replies
 
cogitoergo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:58 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean, I don't understand why you feel the need to attack my character. I find that several times in your post, you either insult my moral fiber or make disparaging comments about other races. I believe that there is a difference between indicating and discussing the causes and effects of social problems and simply making baseless claims and insulting generalizations. To highlight what I'm talking about, here are some excerpts from your post that I feel are either racially offensive comments or unwarranted personal attacks:

Pythagorean;170952 wrote:
It should be no secret that a white skinned person can never, ever venture into an all black community without thereby risking his very life.

In my opinion, you are a shameful apologist for these real racists of the black community because you willfully ignore these most obvious and damning truths.


It doesn't follow that due to the past it is now acceptable to destroy whatever good is left in society by willfully ignoring the plague of anti-morality and life destroying ideology that comes out of the black community but has spread to the whole society at large.


It's a little late to be worried about me disrespecting the black community. Any person with even a scintilla of decency would disrespect both the entire black and the Hispanic communities on moral grounds...



There is no difference between your attitude and the teaching of the public schools. You both condone and celebrate levels of immorality that would make a third world dictator blush.


And they are aware that almost all black people harbour a hatred of white people that is hyper-vulgar, hyper-violent, and disgusting in the extreme. You simply do not know of what you speak. You are not street wise.

You simply do not recognize any meaningful difference between right and wrong, in my opinion. You don't seem to know why a society should be vigilant and stamp out immorality while it has a chance. You are a typical mainstream liberal.


I find that in your posts, you are taking a very aggressive tone and making baseless assertions about my morality. If you'll note, I haven't advanced any sort of personal moral dispostion, I've simply questioned your claims and proposed an alternate explanation. I also feel that often, instead of properly addressing my questions in a philosophical manner, you retort with rhetoric and personal attacks. It is not healthy debate to behave this way. Instead, it is disrespectful to me and to the races of people that you are lodging accusations against.

I would like to have a civil, level-headed debate about these ideas instead of employing generalizations and pigeonholing me as liberal and immoral. This discussion should not be personal.

In response to the few actual arguments in your post, I feel like many of the things you are saying are unfounded. Can you produce any evidence to suggest that before the cultural revolutions of the 1960s that the gap in crime rates between the poor and the upper classes was significantly lower?

Also, I don't understand how you could say that I am willfully ignoring black culture, as you don't know me at all in any fashion. One of my favorite genres of music is Hip-Hop, in which I've found many artists that are promulgators of good virtue and inspiration. I believe that you are generalizing this style of music based on some of its more notorious or mainstream artists, who are, as with any genre of music, prone to be more low-brow.

I don't agree that a "white skinned person can never, ever venture into an all black community without thereby risking his very life." I'm actually from the South. I have "ventured into" black neighborhoods in places like Montgomery, Birmingham, Atlanta, and New Orleans without incident. I spent an afternoon in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. The people there were some of the kindest I've met. It would seem that this is a very negative and unfair generalization that you have formed about black people.

I don't mean in any fashion to excuse people for misogyny, glorification of violence, or hatred of another race. But I do feel that the way to approach these issues is not to condemn an entire race and culture. The entirety of black (or Hispcanic) culture is not immoral or deserving of condemnation. People don't want to listen to anything you have to say if you simply generalize them and speak about them in a hateful fashion. Telling black people that their culture is immoral and inferior is not going to accomplish anything but the proliferation of racism.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously speak negatively about third-world and developing nations, and then conclude your post by instructing me to study how some developing nations "stamp out immorality." I thought you said that third-world ideologies were "incredible violence, drug use and dealing." Perhaps this was another unfair generalization. Additionally, you haven't given any examples of this "stamping out" or explained how it would affect the nation's development. Instead of generalities, specific examples or explanations would be helpful.

I hope that we can put aside the hostility and have a rational discussion about this topic. I also hope that you will refrain from making these negative racial generalizations, as that is a violation of forum rules, and as a moderator, you should be upholding and enforcing them.
fast
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 11:14 am
@Pythagorean,
I don't know if it's too late for this or not, but is it at all possible that maybe we could go back to talking about debt? I think debt in and of itself isn't immoral, but from a personal perspective (not from a community or government perspective) is there healthy debt? How much is too much? Is paying a bit of interest here or there dumb even when you don't have to? Would you drive a beater (and pay repairs out of pocket as you go) to keep from making car payments? What's your view on leverage? Is using the other mans money really as smart as some of us have been taught? Would you dare to buy a rental property (for investment) if your own home isn't paid for?

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 01:20 PM ----------


[QUOTE=sometime sun;171118]I forgot to ask;
Is it moral to pay?[/QUOTE]
It depends. It's wrong to pay the hit man you hired to take someone out. If you borrowed money from the bank, then I think it's moral to pay them back.

[QUOTE]Is payment morality?[/QUOTE]Is it moral to make a payment? What do you mean? If payment is morality, what would morality be!
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 11:30 am
@fast,
fast;171325 wrote:

It depends. It's wrong to pay the hit man you hired to take someone out. If you borrowed money from the bank, then I think it's moral to pay them back.

You are thinking the morality, immorality is attached to the money, to what it is spent on, I thought the question of is debt immoral was debt in and of its self not what is owed but the action of owing.
Is it immoral to expect part of something form someone because they have either said they will pay back of are forced to 'borrow' when all they can pay is part of their self or body, pound of flesh and all that

fast;171325 wrote:

Is it moral to make a payment? What do you mean? If payment is morality, what would morality be!

Is morality a commerce? must something be spent or be expected from something in order for it to be moral?
Is morality exchange of goods and service contingent upon payment not just as one would think morality would be free for all without it being expensive.
Is morality only a stock exchange?
Is morality only what one can get from it, not moral because of it?
Is not morality the ultimate expectancy of goods for goods, instead of being gratis for all, to be moral one must have the fund sot be so.
fast
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 12:39 pm
@sometime sun,
[QUOTE=sometime sun;171330]You are thinking the morality, immorality is attached to the money, to what it is spent on, I thought the question of is debt immoral was debt in and of its self not what is owed but the action of owing.[/QUOTE]I thought you brought up a different issue. Whether or not debt is immoral wasn't the issue I was addressing because it didn't seem to me to be the issue you had in mind when you said, "Is it moral to pay?" Moral to pay what? Our bills? If we create them, then generally speaking we should pay them. Don't you think so?

Whether or not getting loans (and thus having debt) seems to me to be more in line with the question the OP had--which is different than the question I thought you were asking--which I thought was whether or not we should pay them. Of course we should, but like almost always, there are exceptions--I even gave an example of one earlier.

[QUOTE]Is it immoral to expect part of something form someone because they have either said they will pay back of are forced to 'borrow' when all they can pay is part of their self or body, pound of flesh and all that [/QUOTE]Forced to borrow? Give me an example (something concrete I can sink my teeth into).

[QUOTE]Is morality a commerce? must something be spent or be expected from something in order for it to be moral?[/QUOTE]
Quote:

Is morality exchange of goods and service contingent upon payment not just as one would think morality would be free for all without it being expensive.
Is morality only a stock exchange?
Is morality only what one can get from it, not moral because of it?
Is not morality the ultimate expectancy of goods for goods, instead of being gratis for all, to be moral one must have the fund sot be so.
Are you actually asking questions, or are you thinking out loud in question form? I mean, why would you ask, "Is morality only a stock exchange?" Even being nice and charitable, I'm still struggling for why it's even asked--regardless of what you might happen to think it means.
0 Replies
 
Pythagorean
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 06:55 pm
@cogitoergo,
cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
Pythagorean, I don't understand why you feel the need to attack my character. I find that several times in your post, you either insult my moral fiber or make disparaging comments about other races. I believe that there is a difference between indicating and discussing the causes and effects of social problems and simply making baseless claims and insulting generalizations. To highlight what I'm talking about, here are some excerpts from your post that I feel are either racially offensive comments or unwarranted personal attacks:



I find that in your posts, you are taking a very aggressive tone and making baseless assertions about my morality. If you'll note, I haven't advanced any sort of personal moral dispostion, I've simply questioned your claims and proposed an alternate explanation.[


I don't believe that I attacked your character, cogitoergo. From reading your posts you seem like a decent person to me. I spoke my mind. I do feel that you are ignoring some pretty obvious things but I also apologize for being overly aggressive.

It seems to me that you are not fully appreciating the pressures involved and the risks associated with the positions that I am taking. It is as if you are unaware of the general social environment and climate of opinion within which this discussion is taking place. I find it difficult to discuss these issues with someone who is unaware of the dangers involved.

And I don't see how my critiquing the black and Hispanic subcultures is unfair. I fail to understand why leveling a moral critique against abnormally high out of wedlock births, attitudes of violence, the 'pimp' mind-set, and all of the other widely known and widely celebrated negative aspects of these cultures could be construed as unfair or insulting. I truly believe that a young black man or a young Hispanic man would be much better off in life precisely if they were to join me in condemning these anti-social attitudes and behavioural traits. I believe that I would be the genuine benefactor of them and not you and not any others who cannot bring themselves to speak openly of these extreme elements in the culture.



cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
I also feel that often, instead of properly addressing my questions in a philosophical manner, you retort with rhetoric and personal attacks. It is not healthy debate to behave this way. Instead, it is disrespectful to me and to the races of people that you are lodging accusations against.




I was not intending to be 'disrespectful'. It is not out of some racial animosity toward black and Hispanic people that I am speaking here. The black rappers and gang members that loom so large in the culture are the one's whom you should be condemning. Why condemn me? The things that I am saying are downright good natured compared to the things that we all hear on a regular basis from the average rapper or 'gangsta'. It just seems so absurd to defend the type of behaviour that leads to and endlessly perpetuates these sad pathologies. By condemning me and defending them you are endorsing behaviour that consigns generations to lives of spiritual and economic poverty, in my opinion.



I don't think that woman should be whore, I don't think that gangsta rap music is socially redeeming, I don't think that out of wedlock births are good things, I don't think that high levels of murder and violence are good things: because I don't endorse these I am a bad person? It is only because you know I'm not black that you insinuate that I am a racist. Bill Cosby has said the exact same things that I am saying ( to no avail, of course).




cogitoergo;171322 wrote:




In response to the few actual arguments in your post, I feel like many of the things you are saying are unfounded. Can you produce any evidence to suggest that before the cultural revolutions of the 1960s that the gap in crime rates between the poor and the upper classes was significantly lower?


I'm not a social scientist. I have read some of their work and I hate them and the entire field. I believe they are failures.

However, I will take Abraham Lincoln as an example of a man who grew up in poverty (in a log cabin) yet came from a moral family. It was quite common to find the poor in America, such as the Jewish emigres in the 20th Century, who came from grinding poverty to find fame and fortune as writers, artists, entrepreneurs. In fact there were whole generations of immigrants from the late nineteenth century who clawed their way out of poverty. And if we look at the Asian communities today we see the same thing. They are busy studying books in the midst of poverty.

As I said, on the face of it it makes no sense. Morality is not something that people can buy with money. However, it is a prerequisite for social mobility of any type. Which is precisely why those who condemn behaviour that leads to the glorification of 'pimps' and illegitimacy are the real benefactors.


I don' believe that poverty in itself is a barrier to social mobility if that poverty is not accompanied by 'pimp' culture and the like. My parents grew up in poverty, yet they would never celebrate gang culture or excuse out of wedlock births.





cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
Also, I don't understand how you could say that I am willfully ignoring black culture, as you don't know me at all in any fashion. One of my favorite genres of music is Hip-Hop, in which I've found many artists that are promulgators of good virtue and inspiration. I believe that you are generalizing this style of music based on some of its more notorious or mainstream artists, who are, as with any genre of music, prone to be more low-brow.



How could I be (overly) generalizing if they are mainstream?




cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
I don't agree that a "white skinned person can never, ever venture into an all black community without thereby risking his very life." I'm actually from the South. I have "ventured into" black neighborhoods in places like Montgomery, Birmingham, Atlanta, and New Orleans without incident. I spent an afternoon in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. The people there were some of the kindest I've met. It would seem that this is a very negative and unfair generalization that you have formed about black people.



I also have personal experience. Either hatred of white people is common in the black community or it is not. I have little patience for those who would say that black people do not blame white people for their condition. You need only read the political literature. Black political groups openly rant against white people. Yes, it is politically incorrect, as well as dangerous, to say that blacks are racists. But that does not alter the political and social reality. My guess is that you are politically innocent.

cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
I don't mean in any fashion to excuse people for misogyny, glorification of violence, or hatred of another race. But I do feel that the way to approach these issues is not to condemn an entire race and culture. The entirety of black (or Hispcanic) culture is not immoral or deserving of condemnation. People don't want to listen to anything you have to say if you simply generalize them and speak about them in a hateful fashion. Telling black people that their culture is immoral and inferior is not going to accomplish anything but the proliferation of racism.



Again, who is the real hater here? It is an obvious fact that good moral habits lead to happiness, wealth and long life. I am not the one who is defending the attitudes that lead to social decay. To accuse me of telling black people that their culture is immoral and inferior is a mischaracterization, to say the least. You don't like the fact that I am honest about the culture because you are part of the culture. It is your insinuating that I am a racist (because I dare to speak the truth about 'pimp' culture) that is the true act of immorality here. If you truly wanted to lift up black culture you would join me in condemning these destructive traits instead of defending them. Who is the real racist here?




cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
I don't understand how you can simultaneously speak negatively about third-world and developing nations, and then conclude your post by instructing me to study how some developing nations "stamp out immorality." I thought you said that third-world ideologies were "incredible violence, drug use and dealing." Perhaps this was another unfair generalization. Additionally, you haven't given any examples of this "stamping out" or explained how it would affect the nation's development. Instead of generalities, specific examples or explanations would be helpful.


I don't see how I can help you when you ignore the ill effects that immoral attitudes have on society.

In any event, all I did was state that third world dictators and their fellow travelers who oppress, kill and enslave their citizens are a vicious lot. And you should distinguish between the Asian economies, including India, who are developing, and the aforementioned dictators. The dictatorships are black holes of social destruction and human rights violations, whereas the emerging economies are the future of technology and science and industry.



cogitoergo;171322 wrote:
I hope that we can put aside the hostility and have a rational discussion about this topic. I also hope that you will refrain from making these negative racial generalizations, as that is a violation of forum rules, and as a moderator, you should be upholding and enforcing them.



I have taken a risk. That, I know. The sad part is that it is you who are unaware of the risk, except when it comes to defending your dark allowances, and that it is you who are unaware even of why it is a risk at all, or of the fundamental injustice of it. I am not the 'racist' in all of this. I have said nothing that Bill Cosby hasn't said, and the only reason that I am wrong and he is right is because of MY race.

The good people are the bad people, immorality has become morality, injustice has become justice.

That you or anyone else should tell me what I can or cannot say based upon race is shameful. Why can't we speak openly? So what if what someone says is offensive to others? You have outlawed freedom of speech and freedom of expression based upon...what? Pimps and gansters are more sacred to you than freedom of speech, that is very clear. But you don't have any idea why freedom of offensive speech is important to society at all. You don't even know the difference between immorality and morality. Yet, I am the one who has to suffer. That is shameful, disgraceful and unfair. Freedom of offensive speech is precisely what needs to be protected if a society wants to live in freedom. Why would anyone need to protect speech that is not offensive? This is ridiculous: it is offensive political speech that is precisely what a truly free society needs to protect. For me to prove that true freedom of speech is dying in America one only has to look at your, very real, threats against me - right here and right now.

It used to be that the bad guy was not the guy who condemns bad things. It used to be that the bad guy is the guy who defends bad things. I'm not talking about the poor black guy who works hard to put a roof over his family, I am not talking about the hard working Hispanic who clings to his bible and works 16 hours a day and you know it.

I'm talking about 'pimp' culture, I am talking about rap music I am talking about the culture. And I believe that you know exactly what I am talking about. By defending the culture you are consigning its children to lives of trouble and pain.

-
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 01:54 pm
@Pythagorean,
I have just heard on the news that we are all naturally prejudiced. Even black children naturally have a negative outlook towards their own colour. Can it be an insurmountable obstacle for many black children to overcome, this negativity we all feel towards being of a certain colour. To admit a large minority of the black or Hispanic cultures is degraded, is to admit a problem for us all, not just for those we condemn. To say its endemic in a race, is dangerous, it has to be rationalised by more than the skin we are born with.
0 Replies
 
Thales
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 10:09 pm
@kennethamy,
Don't make an equation out of it .
It is not immoral, if a person in debt is a person by itself.
But if the persons debt effects other persons in anyway , then persons debt
is immoral.
But their are exceptions to the rule.
A person can go indebt to save somebody's life , its not immoral. The problem
of paying it back , is however an ever present condition on the persons life .
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 11:01 pm
Does it not seem that people tend to feel that when poor people take on debt it is not as respectable as when wealthy take on debt?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 01:26 am
Grant or force debt upon others it is as immoral as it is to take it lightly for fast consume without true need...I call it the natural balance of the fools...those who force misery in the world and those who gladly take it without thinking twice...they match each other in the typical short term vision sheer display of stupidity...market rules...the bloody market rules !

Post Scriptum - ...of course the market rules are not truly to be faulted, that was a manner of speech, rather what they reveal upon us...
0 Replies
 
Thomas33
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 03:26 pm
Finance is immoral; unfortunately, ceasing all finance and debt would require mutual respect all across the planet, which I don't think is possible.
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:32 pm
@Thomas33,
"Finance" is immoral?

You're going to need to give us your definition of the word finance, as those 3 words by themselves make no sense.

Thomas33
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:33 pm
@chai2,
Money is immoral.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:48 pm
@Thomas33,
ok, I'll bite.

Why is money immoral?


What would you do in place of some sort of system when one person needs something, and the person who provides it does not need your work, or anything that you would have to trade? Trading only goes so far, money is just an agreed upon unit that can be used for anything. Whatever object that is agreed upon to be used as money has no value, and no morals one way or the other.

BTW, the expression is miss quoted as "Money is the root of all evil", it's "Avarice (love of money) is the root of all evil"



Thomas33
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 06:18 pm
@chai2,
People just live so that universal need is acknowledged - universal need being routine.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Debt Immoral?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 01:36:32