I'm not going to de-rail the thread by getting into a serious arguement here. But everything your saying is your own opinion and projection, based on a lot of bad information, and of course other opinions. Your basic logic is "I believe this, so thus I also believe this, and it becomes a fact" that's not correct.Friv said:
Without addressing the issue directly understand that almost everything you mention is still an issue today. One of the biggest issues throughout society right now is that of profiling, which can include a lot of things, with race being something you can add into a profile. We live in a world where socilogy and the abillity to predict the behavior of people as groups is an accepted science. It's exploited regularly by advertising and marketing who directly target groups of people based on things like race/subculture/etc... and make millions of dollars by exploiting them sociologically through their behaviors. It's gotten to the point where it works so well that there are entire movements of people (a minority prescence so far) that want to see it more tightly regulated because it basically amounts to being able to use the abillity to predict people as groups to tell them a lie their are going to believe in order to sell a product.
This leads to questions of course about whether the goverment should be able to use the same, basic, routinely proven knowlege, in taking action against criminals, criminal behaviors, and simply just starting a chain of evidence when looking into something (ie, why we decide to investigate this person as opposed to the other people involved). Perhaps the biggest "practical" issue here has to do with profiling Muslims. After all it's Muslims who are the ones involved in a terrorism crusade against the western world, trying to blow up planes, attacking embassies over movie trailers, and similar things. When it comes to Airline security at least for the moment that's what we're concerned about, yet rather than being able to pick out the more likely security risks, an entire game has to be played of harassing everyone despite common sense to make a symbolic point and not be seen selectively picking out a group of people.
The point here being that it's pretty obvious what side your on, what you believe, and how TO YOU it's a binary equasion. That's not how it is though, and it's why your pretty much lumped in with the left wingers/liberals and of course this kind of fanatical committment to "I am right in an absolutist sense" is why the country remains divided. Take this away from one issue, and apply it to well... dozens of things, and you see why things are so totally F@cked up. To be blunt with you when it comes to gay rights, on the right wing side of things it's not even a question of "are they human" turning it into a binary equasion. It's a matter of traditional morality as it's been practiced until very recently defining this as wrong... period. There isn't even a binary question to add onto this.
You also incidently illustrate my point by spelling out the logic that makes you one of the extremist poles, and pretty much arrive at exactly where I mentioned. The true middle ground is lumped into "the other side" by either pole. You argue that I'm a right winger bigot by not beleiving in complete acceptance (whatever my reasons might be), the right wing considers me an extremist liberal hippy because I'm not after a complete and unconditional ban.
Really you said very little that wasn't inflammatory rhetoric, which is based on the alleged resolution of issues that were never actually resolved and also continue along parallel discussions. I mean even when it comes to property ownership there are issues about ethnic monopolies, that get heavily involved whenever discussions of say "Chinatown districts" and other ethic areas occur. The basic idea that someone who is say Chinese will only sell or long-term lease to someone who is Chinese as opposed to putting a property on the market as hey are supposd to. Some white/black/hispanic/whatever guy not being able to get it, even if they are there first, or with the best offer. A behavior which incidently happens to be illegal, but generally isn't enforced on minorities due to liberal pressures. If some white guy refuses to sell to an American minority that's an issue, a minority refuses to sell outside of their minority and that's not viewed the same way, and becomes a major issue. Jews still come up in these discussions but they are not alone, and yes, there are a lot of efforts to bust up ethnic property monopolies. The problem actually becomes more touchy when you wind up with religion and unadapted "closed cultures". Jews for example do very much operate under a doctine of superiority as "god's chosen people", as do a lot of other groups. They of course aren't alone here, and the justifications for this kind of doctrine aren't always religious either. There have been other issues about wanting to break that up as well, and prohibit religions, even minority ones, that include any kind of doctrine which can be taken as promoting superiority or inferiority... which needless to say hadn't gone too far, but again it's another
issue that's out there. The point being that a lot of the things you believe, and consider to have been "resolved" have not been, and continue on within society.
