Europeans are killing off 'african americans'
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
And you have some kind of reference to back this up I would expect? Or some kind of observation? Or experience?
There is an urgent need for minority organ donation. Right now, more than 50% of the 88,000 people on the national waiting list are minorities (African American, Hispanic, Asian and other non-Caucasians). This is because minorities suffer from hypertension, kidney and heart disease (causing organ failure) at higher rates than the Caucasian population. Organ donation is crucial among all ethnicities and cultures because matching genetic similarities help the success of transplantation.
http://www.gsds.org/newsroom/stats_facts.html
http://www.gsds.org/newsroom/stats_facts.html
spuriousmonkey said:
Oh, I agree with that! But notice that if all of those who CLAIM to care, and CLAIM to want to help, actually did help, then I could still drive my Cadillac and the people of Africa would also be helped!
Spurious, in case you still haven't figured it out, people DON'T WANT TO HELP ....they just say they do so others will think "nice" of them. See? I don't give a fuck what people think, so I just say it for them!!
Why isn't that obvious to you and others? People make those grandiose statements about caring, about wanting to help, about giving a shit ....when they don't care at all ...not one lousy bit!
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
Once again we are in agreement. It seems lefties and righties can agree on some things.
Baron Max:
I don't think that is correct. Do you have any statistics, or is that just a guess? Take one example: Australia gave $1 billion in aid this year to help Tsunami victims, alone. That's equivalent to about $50 per person in Australia - much more that $1 per month. According to you, this amount should be more than sufficient to end poverty. But I don't think it is.
Wrong. You assume that all liberals advocate making personal contributions to the underprivileged. That is not correct. Moreover, some liberals would like to do that but do not have the means. And there are other reasons too. Maybe you can think of some.
There are a number of stages in moral development. Each stage involves widening the circle of objects who deserve moral consideration. Roughly, the stages are something like this:
1. Me
2. Me and my mother.
3. Me and my immediate family.
4. Me and my extended family.
5. Me and my family and friends.
6. Me, my family, friends and aquaintances.
7. Me, my family, friends, aquaintances, and the people who live near me.
8. All of the above + people who live in the same nation as me.
9. All of the above + people of other nations.
10. All of the above + non-human animals.
11. All of the above + "the planet".
Most children quickly get to stage 3. You seem to be at stage 4. Many adults never get beyond stage 5 in any real sense. Some community-minded individuals make it to level 7. Even less make it to stage 8, and an almost negligible number get to stage 9. Probably less than 1% of humanity ever gets to level 10 or 11.
In what way? I don't have anything against you, Baron, since I understand exactly where you're coming from. I may pity you, but I don't hate you. On the other hand, I do like to challenge people with narrow views such as yours. Not that I expect you will change at age 61.
Who said I have a "love your fellow man" ideal? I think you misunderstand liberalism.
J.B:
No, that was Baron Max, not me. Take it up with him.
I don't think that is correct. Do you have any statistics, or is that just a guess? Take one example: Australia gave $1 billion in aid this year to help Tsunami victims, alone. That's equivalent to about $50 per person in Australia - much more that $1 per month. According to you, this amount should be more than sufficient to end poverty. But I don't think it is.
Wrong. You assume that all liberals advocate making personal contributions to the underprivileged. That is not correct. Moreover, some liberals would like to do that but do not have the means. And there are other reasons too. Maybe you can think of some.
There are a number of stages in moral development. Each stage involves widening the circle of objects who deserve moral consideration. Roughly, the stages are something like this:
1. Me
2. Me and my mother.
3. Me and my immediate family.
4. Me and my extended family.
5. Me and my family and friends.
6. Me, my family, friends and aquaintances.
7. Me, my family, friends, aquaintances, and the people who live near me.
8. All of the above + people who live in the same nation as me.
9. All of the above + people of other nations.
10. All of the above + non-human animals.
11. All of the above + "the planet".
Most children quickly get to stage 3. You seem to be at stage 4. Many adults never get beyond stage 5 in any real sense. Some community-minded individuals make it to level 7. Even less make it to stage 8, and an almost negligible number get to stage 9. Probably less than 1% of humanity ever gets to level 10 or 11.
In what way? I don't have anything against you, Baron, since I understand exactly where you're coming from. I may pity you, but I don't hate you. On the other hand, I do like to challenge people with narrow views such as yours. Not that I expect you will change at age 61.
Who said I have a "love your fellow man" ideal? I think you misunderstand liberalism.
J.B:
No, that was Baron Max, not me. Take it up with him.
James R said:
Missed it again, James! I mean $1 per month, every month of the year, every year of the century, every century of the millinium (or whatever the hell is next!). Yes, it would end poverty all over the world ...easily.
James R said:
Yeah, the dirty, stinkin' bastards want to take MY money, while they don't do nothin' but talk up a big game of ......caring! Well, fuck 'em ...I'm just gonna' start lying and claiming I care, too, and keep my money just like those dirty, stinkin' bastards!!!
Just loved your mamby-pamby "stages of moral development"! ...LOL! Silly, foolish, unworkable, naive idealism (or fantasy dreams, whichever you prefer!). And just like the UN crap, it's just something to talk about over fine wine and good food and good cigars .....but, good heavens, it's not for actual reality!
Whenever the realities of the world come up against the liberal idealisms, the ideals fall flat on their face. Ideals are for fun discussions and idle dreams, nothing more ....unless the dreamer has a damned big gun and is willing to use it. Oops, but then ...what happened to the idealism????
Baron Max
James R said:
I've read that several times, I've thought about that a lot ....does this mamby-pamby attitude or principle apply to the people who kidnap, sexually abuse, torture and kill little 8-yr old girls??? ...or men like the BTK killer in Kansas City who kidnapped, tortured and killed all those young women?
Those people deserve the same "love" that you give to your family members and your close friends?
The other thing that bothers me is ...do we all just need to say that, or claim to have that attitude, even if we really don't?? Is there no way of sorting out those "goody-goody" people from "regular old" people? ...other than just what they claim? ...even tho' most people might be lying thru their teeth?
I'm sorry, James, that just seems like a child's fairy tale, ya' know? Like a "Snow White" or "Cinderella" story ...surely not what's going on in the real world of human interaction. I.e., nothing but fiction!
Baron Max
He is not talking about giving them some loving...
You are not supposed to treat everybody the same. Everybody has the same rights. There is a difference. So you don't have to french kiss the homeless guy but you may do that to your wife or girlfriend. But both your wife and the homeless person have the 'freedom of speech' for instance.
Baron Max:
Of course you think that. As I said, you're at about stage 4. People at that level don't see the point of stages 5-11. They think it's stupid. Which just goes to prove my point.
Not at all. Ideals are something to strive for. That doesn't mean you can't recognise realities at the same time.
Yes. Serial killers and child rapists are usually at stage 1. They do what is good for them, only.
I never said they deserved love.
No, Baron. There's no law forcing you to become morally sophisticated. You can remain at level 4. You won't be prosecuted for that, so no need to worry yourself.
Simple, Baron. Judge people by their actions as well as their words.
Maybe you just mix with the wrong crowd, so you seldom meet people who are really concerned about things beyond level 4 or 5.
Of course you think that. As I said, you're at about stage 4. People at that level don't see the point of stages 5-11. They think it's stupid. Which just goes to prove my point.
Not at all. Ideals are something to strive for. That doesn't mean you can't recognise realities at the same time.
Yes. Serial killers and child rapists are usually at stage 1. They do what is good for them, only.
I never said they deserved love.
No, Baron. There's no law forcing you to become morally sophisticated. You can remain at level 4. You won't be prosecuted for that, so no need to worry yourself.
Simple, Baron. Judge people by their actions as well as their words.
Maybe you just mix with the wrong crowd, so you seldom meet people who are really concerned about things beyond level 4 or 5.
J.B:
No. I never said that.
Yes. For example, the people at level 4 tend to discriminate against members of the groups mentioned in 5-11. The level 4-ers take the attitude that only they and their family matter, and all the other people in the world can suffer or whatever - it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't negatively impact the 4-er and his family.
Where do you think you fit on the scale, J.B?
No. Father is immediate family. Most children bond more strongly to their mother than to their father, which is why I make that distinction.
No. I never said that.
Yes. For example, the people at level 4 tend to discriminate against members of the groups mentioned in 5-11. The level 4-ers take the attitude that only they and their family matter, and all the other people in the world can suffer or whatever - it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't negatively impact the 4-er and his family.
Where do you think you fit on the scale, J.B?
No. Father is immediate family. Most children bond more strongly to their mother than to their father, which is why I make that distinction.
James R said:
No, James, I think ye're seeing that in the wrong light. I, for example, care about people that are starving in Africa or Pakistan or elsewhere, but I'm realistic enough to know/realize that we have people right HERE, within a ten mile radius of my own home, that are also starving to death! It's a matter of degree of caring, not not caring at all!!!
But how can I or anyone claim to really care about people ten thousand miles away when there are so many destitute people within ten miles? What I see is that it's just being terribly hippo-critical for that to happen ...one can NOT claim to care, as you've outlined, while those so close are in dire need ...and DO nothing to help.
Americans donate record amounts of money to charities all over the world ...and at the same time, right in their own neighborhoods, thousands are in the same or worse situations who get very, very little in charitable donations. How can you reconcile that attitude with such a grandiose ideal as you've outlined?
And again, doesn't that very thing show you that the people who CLAIM to care, don't really care? And that it's just all talk and no action? Just ideals for the sake of idealism, while ignoring reality?
Baron Max
James R said:
Well, sure ....but you included them in the stages where YOU care for THEM ....even tho' their vicious, torturous killers of little girls!! I don't give a damn about them, but you do ...you said so yourself! How can you care for them ...while they torture and kill little girls?? That's what I want to know.
You've "condemned" me for NOT caring about those murders, condemned me to "stage 4", for god's sake! Is that worse than hell?
Baron Max
Baron Max:
If you like. In that case, would it be fair to say that the degree of caring decreases much more rapidly for people who best fit at a particular level? For example, an American at level 10 would care much more about a starving person in Africa than would a level 3 American.
I agree.
I don't think that Americans donate more to overseas causes than to local causes. But perhaps you have statistics which say otherwise.
Not necessarily. For example, a person might believe that it is more important to help a family in Africa living on $2 a month than to help a family in relative poverty in America, which earns several hundred dollars a month.
I don't like them, but I believe they are entitled to certain rights, the same as everybody else. For example, they are entitled to a fair trial. In this kind of situation, you have to weigh up the rights of the little girls you mention against the rights of the killers.
Your division of everybody into two groups, those who deserve a whole set of enforceable rights and those who deserve few if any rights, is very simplistic.
The question is: Do you really care about other people's children? Or is saying that you do an example of "waste of time idealism", as you were saying earlier?
If you like. In that case, would it be fair to say that the degree of caring decreases much more rapidly for people who best fit at a particular level? For example, an American at level 10 would care much more about a starving person in Africa than would a level 3 American.
I agree.
I don't think that Americans donate more to overseas causes than to local causes. But perhaps you have statistics which say otherwise.
Not necessarily. For example, a person might believe that it is more important to help a family in Africa living on $2 a month than to help a family in relative poverty in America, which earns several hundred dollars a month.
I don't like them, but I believe they are entitled to certain rights, the same as everybody else. For example, they are entitled to a fair trial. In this kind of situation, you have to weigh up the rights of the little girls you mention against the rights of the killers.
Your division of everybody into two groups, those who deserve a whole set of enforceable rights and those who deserve few if any rights, is very simplistic.
The question is: Do you really care about other people's children? Or is saying that you do an example of "waste of time idealism", as you were saying earlier?
James R said:
Am I to take that as you thinking that everyone has an infinite amount of "caring" ...that it's not spread out like peanut butter on a slice of toast ten square miles? Or do level 10 people have more "caring" inside them than those at level 4?
James R said:
Even tho' both families are starving? Is starving relative to the distance from oneself?
James R said:
My one major character flaw is that I really do like little kids ...any kids! I just don't like 'em when the grow up and become vicious killers and rapists and suicide bombers!
But seriously, James, I do honestly see such idealist attitudes as little more than a waste of time ...because we talk and never really do anything about the issues. If we DID something, then I might be more interested in discussing some of the issues. But to whine, cry and wring our hands over the plight of the earthquake victims in Pakistan, yet every day drive right by the poorest of neighborhoods in our own city without a sideways glance is ...hmm, what do you call that, James?
No, all-in-all, I think it's just idealistic psycho-babble to make ourselves feel good ...nothing more.
Baron Max
I don't know how much "caring" people have. I'm talking about what they care about.
Some people think so.
Hey, maybe you're not so bad after all. Do you think kids in general have a right not to be killed by evil pedophiles? Or just American kids? Or just ones who live near you? Or what?
So what about those kids again? Do you care what happens to them, or not? And if you do, are you going to do anything about it? I'm sure you wouldn't just say "what a shame" and do nothing, because that would be to go against your own values, wouldn't it? It would just be "idealistic psycho-babble" to make yourself feel good.
The only way I can see that you can be consistent with your own proclaimed standards is either to say "forget the kids - let other people look after them", in which case you don't really care, or make it the focus of your life to protect kids from abuse.