• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I Discriminate

I shall continue to discriminate but I shall only be capable of doing so forth here in text.

I see the game here and just roll with the little bitch slaps.

Still not sure why simple abstract references are beyond certain skulls to comprehend.

I guess a vacuum is discriminatory.
 
Follow your own truth. Rightness or wrongness shall follow accordingly. But to follow another's truth blindly is a certain abdication and forfeit of sovereign free will and to so submit under another's unknown and forthwith will is the recipe for the loss of human right.

And no, I'm not a blowhard...;)...
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
If you (the general "you") thinks that discrimination is okay, then you can no longer say that you believe that every human being has intrinsic worth. The two are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said about intrinsic worth.
I also agree not everyone has intrinsic ABILITIES.
We are NOT all the same in our abilities.
That is why a good sports coach will place team members to positions best suiting their abilities.
They favor one team member over another depending upon the position needing to be filled.
Business should be the same way.
Government should be the same way.
The military should be the same way.
but it is not, and this causes a complete mess of inefficiency and ineptitude.

It is unrealistic to say or believe everyone on the planet has the very same intrinsic abilities.

I am not talking about RIGHTS. I am talking about ABILITIES.

The fact people do have different abilities is actually a strength if incorporated correctly.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I agree with what you said about intrinsic worth.
I also agree not everyone has intrinsic ABILITIES.
We are NOT all the same in our abilities.
That is why a good sports coach will place team members to positions best suiting their abilities.
They favor one team member over another depending upon the position needing to be filled.
Business should be the same way.
Government should be the same way.
The military should be the same way.
but it is not, and this causes a complete mess of inefficiency and ineptitude.

It is unrealistic to say or believe everyone on the planet has the very same intrinsic abilities.

I am not talking about RIGHTS. I am talking about ABILITIES.

The fact people do have different abilities is actually a strength if incorporated correctly.
Click to expand...

ASW

 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I agree with what you said about intrinsic worth.
I also agree not everyone has intrinsic ABILITIES.
We are NOT all the same in our abilities.
That is why a good sports coach will place team members to positions best suiting their abilities.
They favor one team member over another depending upon the position needing to be filled.
Business should be the same way.
Government should be the same way.
The military should be the same way.
but it is not, and this causes a complete mess of inefficiency and ineptitude.

It is unrealistic to say or believe everyone on the planet has the very same intrinsic abilities.

I am not talking about RIGHTS. I am talking about ABILITIES.

The fact people do have different abilities is actually a strength if incorporated correctly.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with one word of that. Of course, it has nothing to do with discrimination based on stereotypes.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I don't disagree with one word of that. Of course, it has nothing to do with discrimination based on stereotypes.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.
It has nothing to do with discrimination based on stereotypes.
Even if some of those stereotypes are embarrassingly true.

I was told a humorous story by a lady in a bar about stereotypes.

She used the vehicles parked outside of a local bar as a theoretical example.

One vehicle is a truck kinda beat up with an NRA sticker on the bumper and a gun rack.

The other is a Prius with college parking stickers

The other is the preverbal '57 Chevy with fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror.

You walk into the bar and see three people.
a young female of about 20.
and older white male of about 50
and a Hispanic male of about 20.

Now who owns what vehicle?

The young lady owns the truck, is a local rancher's daughter, and loves to hunt.
The older white male is a classic car collector and owns the '57 Chevy and decked it all out.
The Hispanic male owns the Prius, and won it in a game show for free along with some money so he can now go to college.

All is not what it seems.
 
But why did you only make E-6 in twenty years?

Assuming your retirement clause is truthful?
 
And if otherwise then you're just ranch for slopfodder
 



If you're a Navy Man you know what to do.
 
Wild turkey!
 
Last edited:
Realitywins said:
Are you in the US? If so, clearly you don't pay attention to the news.
Click to expand...

You mean our lovely MSM that loves to pull partial quotes out of context to use as headlines, bring on "experts" nobody's ever heard of, and refuses to cite the source of their "developments"? Yeah, no, that's totally reliable.
I don't believe anything I see from a media outlet that is funded by organizations with political agendas and massive influence. Which is most of the major ones. (Disney owns ABC, CNN tied to Clinton Foundation, etc).

Not attacking you here, just do a little research before you use TV as your source of information. Truth only helps them if it boosts their ratings.
 
Show me one established government since time began that was the essence of mans equality to man.
 
soot said:
I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.
Click to expand...

Probably one of the worst examples of an alleged cogent argument I have ever seen.

Read Nietzsche AND the Declaration of Independence: think about what you're trying to say, and then post a new OP.
 
jet57 said:
Probably one of the worst examples of an alleged cogent argument I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, please explain.

Read Nietzsche AND the Declaration of Independence
Click to expand...

Given your contributions elsewhere I'm hardly inclined to believe that you're prepared to engage in a substantive conversation about this, thus your drive-by comment.

But if you want to discuss political philosophy I'm certainly willing to do so.

Clearly my position sides, you'll agree, more with Nietzschean anti-egalitarianism and equality being more of a useful value rather than an inherent value and as such it might be in disagreement with the overly broad concept of fundamental equality espoused by the Declaration, but you'll also agree that the Declaration isn't law and has no real bearing on the United States or how its governed beyond being an interesting and important, though essentially impotent, historic document.

So, no, I'm not going to post a new OP.

I'm going to stick with Nietzsche and the U.S. Constitution and argue for the acceptability and even the desirability of inequality.

What???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom