Debra Law wrote:
I attended law school and earned a juris doctorate, but I haven't practiced law in many years. Thus, I haven't been a "lawyer" for many years, although I have engaged in legal research and writing for others during my retirement. My hubby and I own income-producing property, including a successful business, all of which is none of your concern. Because we live in a nation of laws, not of men, all citizens should know and understand the laws that govern our individual and collective conduct.
And, of course, words matter and ought to be understood and mean something. I wonder if the word "ambiguity" means anything to you? It doesn't escape anyone's attention that you omitted both Georgeob1's words and the entire context in which they were offered. Please provide what you omitted and then provide us with your "comprehension" of Georgeob1's message. What is his beef? Be clear.
I'll try to help you out of your confusion. Here's what I wrote;
Quote: I do reject the contemporary group identities imposed on us by current fashion , as well the associated distortion of our constitution, which addressed the rights of individuals as opposed to groups. My experience in life has taught be that individal variations everywhere are generally greater and far more significant than the supposed differences in these group identities. I have also observed that little lasting good has been accomplished by government action based on such group identity.
Finally I recognize that the only real solution to these issues is the recognition of the significant individual qualities of people in preference to the relatively insignificant group categories with which we currently label them. The assumption that increased government directed and enforced efforts to correct past wrongs, with even more group identity based enforcement, won't have far worse and lasting adverse side effects than the thing it ostensibly seeks to rectify, strikes me as ludicrous.
I believe the thought line and meaning are clear enough, however the essence of it is in the following points;
=> The differences among individuals within the curently fashionable group identies ( White, Black, Hispanic, Women, Men, Heterosexual, Homosexual &other variants, etc.) are, in my experience, greater and far more significant than the (relatively superficial) characteristics used to define these groups.
=> Prejudice and intolerance will decline in proportion to the degree that people judge or choose among others based on their individual characteristics or merits in preference to those associuated with group identities.
=> Government programs intended to reduce the effects of past (or poresent) prejudices based themselves on these group identities have inherent adverse side effects in that they themselves involve coercive action based on group instead of individual charistics. In short another dose of inorganic arsenic is not an efective remedy for arsenic poisioning.
All remedies have side effects, many of them adverse. However we have clearly reached a point at which the adverse side effects exceed any beneficial ones in all this stuff. I's time, as MLK said, to "judge others by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin".
Debra Law wrote:
I am aware of man's inhumanity to man. The reason so much attention is given to the Holocaust is due to the vast similarities between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power and his clear use of Hitler's playbook. That is something you have yet to acknowledge.
In reference to this point, and to your odd insertion of the Holocaust into the earlier this discussion in your earlier post, I stated the following;
Quote: Do you really know that the Extermination of Jews in Europe during WWII "didn't teach me anything" or indeed that I needed to be taught anything at all in that area? It seems to me that you are being rather presumptuous and prejudicial... not to mention undeservedly offensive.
I followed with a partial list of the major mass exterminations that have occurred in just the past 150 years - it is perhaps surprisingly long, and still continuing as we exchange these posts. I suggested this is illustrative of a sad but observable fact of human nature.
The casual connection you find in ,
"the vast similarities between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's rise to power and his clear use of Hitler's playbook." ..... are not at all obvious. Please explain. Indeed I find many similarities between the populist elements of Senator Bernie Sander's primary campaign against Clinton, and Trump's against her in the final. Do you believe Sanders too was imitating Hitler? I can find many deep differences in the rhetoric of both when compared to the ample material we have from Hitler. I find your allusions here to be vague, insufficient and probably disingenuous.
Yiu also wrote this;
Debra Law wrote:
Georgeob1: It has been apparent to me for quite some time that you're anti-gay, anti-black, anti-equal rights/civil rights, anti-social programs, anti-education, and the list continues. In other words, I see you for the supremacist and oppressor that you are. That makes me sad. Why didn't the massacre of millions of people in Nazi Germany teach you anything?
I found that a bit offensive, but finally realized you're addressing only the de rigueur superficial PC manifestations of these things, not the substance. I hope you will become able to see beyond that stuff.
Finally, I think we both recognize, and have experienced, the benefits, and limits of advanced education. Yours in the law; mine in appplied physics, plus nuclear and structural engineering. I too am still active and also run a business (about 550 people, mostly engineers, geologists, chemists & toxicologists). I believe I have learned far more since leaving university than in it.
