Mr F. said:
Actually I have, and that's one of the reasons why I'm going to discount (and snip) most of what you said since you apparently have little or no background, or at least proper education, in the subjects your trying to discuss with me given some of your conclusions.
For example, "Ethics" is the study of ethical systems, as opposed to teaching someone what's right and wrong. It's about teaching you differant systems, their internal types of logic, and where they come into conflict with other ethnical systems. It's about discussing things like utilitarianism (good is defined by what benefits the most people), as opposed to say absolutism (what's good is an unchanging principle, regardless of how many people might agree with it or benefit from it). To be brutally honest with you, I'm probably one of the most ethical people on these forums, being extremely consistant in my belief structure and what I advocate, as opposed to many others who largely argue without any kind of actual principle, and instead on what benefits them, personally, at any given moment.
When it comes to sociology, your absolutly correct that the "racial modules" is pretty much bunk. Racism is merely a political tool in the US, an idea people will rally behind, despite it not really existing in any form mainstream enough to demand political action. Things like "invisible knapsack theory" exist to pretty much argue the existance of the "great enemy" in a form nobody can see, to keep people rallied and focused. Blacks, Hispanics, and others represent powerful voting blocs when they can be manipulated en-masse, and the common enemy of "racism" allows these groups to be brought in to support one side or another.
The promotion of racism as something that still exists on a mainstream, societal, level is one of the reasons so many people complain about the educational system being too heavily corrupted by the left wing and it's political tools. The very fact that a sociology class will tell you racism is a major, driving force in western society "even if you can't see it" is exactly the problem, it specifies it being an exception to everything else you learn which is all about recognizing trends, stereotypes, and groups of people, and at a more advanced level applying this knowlege towards manipulation (things like Advertising).
Right now faux-accusations of societal racism exist to drive a wedge into society which is exloited for political advantage, rather than an actual societal problem. It has gone from a real issue to a boogie man used to maintain and manipulate a siege mentality.
If you learned or studied sociology properly, you'd know this. Especially seeing as you can see actual societal racism in other nations and cultures (generally away from the western world). When you need to make arguements about invisibility so as not to contidict the rest of what you learn there is a problem. Racism is basically the equivilent of a child's invisible friend for liberals, it doesn't exist, but by pretending it does they can get more attention.
As far as Muslims go, I probably shouldn't have to educate you here, but I will. "Muslim" is a culture that happens to include race as one of it's defining traits. While not all Arabs are Muslims, you need to be an Arab to be a Muslim. This is why you have divides among Islamics and have the Muslim peoples which represent a majority, and offshoots like the "Black Muslims" which are identified specifically because Blacks can't truely be Muslims. To explain it properly, while a Muslim can convert someone into one of the faithful, strictly speaking if they aren't Arab they aren't one of the chosen people and will never truely be one of them.
Of course with Black Muslims there is also some dogmatic differances, namely involving Yakub (or Jacob) who was an ancient scientist-sorceror who was corrupted by playing with magnets and invented human genetics thousands of years ago, inventing white people as a tool to oppress the "true black man" and setting him loose on the world. It also includes a prophecy about the return of the black dominance and the fall of the evil whites. This dogma is in part what Manson's "Helter Skelter" (the great race war, which whites would lose, but rise again from the ashes of if we prepared) was based on... other than a Beatles song. At any rate this is largely irrelevent, while it isn't the best summary in the world look up Yakub and "Nation Of Thisslam" on Wikipedia some time. It's noteworthy because to be honest the most extreme fringes right now seem to actually be racism coming from minorities (at least in the western world) but even so it's just fringes with no real impact on the mainstream as the general populance is rallied against racism.
At any rate, when it comes to Muslims you need to understand it's possible to practice Islam without being a part of the Muslim culture. It's sort of like how it's possible to be Christian without being catholic. What's more, for all the criticisms of it, Christianity changed massively to adapt into society and co-existance. Christians were as bad, or worse, than Muslims, including the same kinds of racial overtones. The differance is that Christianity modernized, put most of it's major rituals and confrontational aspects into the past, and nowadays you generally can't tell a Christian from a Wiccan from an Atheist unless they tell you.
I have no real issue with Islam as a whole, if the people practicing it want to knock it the hell off and practice their faith quietly (no special prayer rooms, no interrupting everyone to face Mecca and kneel, no Turbans, etc...) I could care less. Indeed there are many Islamics who do exactly this in the western world, and I have no real issues with them. I do on the other hand have a problem with the Muslim culture, and believe that as long as it's practiced the way it is through The Middle East right now there will never be any kind of peaceful co-existance, just ebbs and flows in the level of violence, as the ideas... which are closed to outside change and influance, are going to remain. You cannot simply educate the people and teach them a better way as they are fanatically arrayed against it.
It's important to note that when I've advocated mass murder, it's been based around wiping out the core of the cancer, which is the self-fueling civilizations of The Middle East. Take down those theocracies and the fanatics that keep these ideas alive, and Islam will change and adapt into the rest of global society without this poison being pumped out constantly.
When you discuss ethics, understand I believe very much in doing what's good in the long term. If we kill a few hundred million people right now, that's a lesser evil than letting this continue. After all in the scope of a few thousand years, you will probably see more people die as a result of this culture, or basically be brain washed into slavery (as is the case with a lot of the women). Wipe it out, Islam continues, but co-exists with society. It's a matter of short term "murder is wrong, OMG, all that blood on our hands" thinking, compared to looking at the big picture.
The way a lot of people in the left wing are conditioned, I think there is a fundemental inabillity to both think for the long term, and to understand the idea of a culture as an enemy, as opposed to a race, religion, or nation.
I also tend to think on other issues like overpopulation, which liberals tend to pretend doesn't exist. There are too many bloody people. I find it ironic that while on enviromental rants liberals agree with this (resource depletion, wiping out forests and such to meet basic needs) but when it comes to population reduction through anything from war, to eugenics, they freak out. A problem is worth twenty solutions to a liberal, who generally fails to realize that there will never be a perfect answer to the big issues and that by delaying, waiting for one, things just get worse. Killing off a lot of people that represent a problem is again something I think of as being good for the long term, especially if measures are taken for population control in the aftermath of the region.
See, you disagree with me, but understand that I follow a very specific ethical pattern based on what's good for humanity in the long term. My ideal "endgame" for earth would be a world unity (the "New World Order" many people fear) largely under American principles (though not the American goverment itself, which would also be dissolved as part of the process). For reasons I won't break down I do not think things like space travel and exploration are practical as long as the world remains divided (some speculative fiction presents exactly that as happening, but I do not think it's workable for reasons I won't break down here), and I believe space exploration and colonization is nessicary, despite the staggering costs, simply to allow our population to spread and obtain enough resources to do it.
In the end we're never going to agree with each other, mainly because when you get down to it I've come to the conclusion that being a huge bastard is actually the most ethnical path in the big picture, and ultimatly best for humanity. Of course I also believe that once a lot of these central problems are solved, more idealistic philsophies will be possible. We will never have a utopia, and always big issues, but right now we're at a very tenative state in our existance as a species and we'll never get past this point if we basically engage in indecisive hand wringing.
I'll also say that in the short term, I'm extremely nationalistic for the US because of the ideas at it's core. I believe it's basic tenets are the only thing we have going right now that could get everyone working together with a reasonable amount of freedom. Other philsophies like those of the Chinese, Russians, etc... could potentially unify the planet as well, but wouldn't exactly lead to a very free society.
At any rate, there isn't a whole heck of a lot for us to discuss. You dislike what I stand for, and I pretty much thing your naive and impractical. There isn't a lot for us to talk about here unless we want to get into an endless arguement, draw people in, and risk starting a flame war. In the end more people on these forums are going to agree with you than me (it's just the enviroment) so I suppose you can take some comfort in that if it helps. I'm personally not going to argue the point, just leave things at my statements.