Understanding "privilege"

[fm93]

The skeptics are entitled to be wrong. In some cases, however, they're probably right.

I have irrefutable evidence that at least one Christian believed primarily because the idea of heaven made him feel good. I know this because I was that person, back when I was twelve years old. So although the skeptics' canard is a stereotype refuted by many Christians who had much better reasons for believing, I know for a fact that the stereotype isn't completely false. Meanwhile, I don't have irrefutable evidence that any liberals believe what they do just because it makes them feel good. Neither gross generalization of a massive group of people is good, but technically theirs is more demonstrably accurate than yours.

[Cerealman]

He's not arguing in favor of disadvantaging a different group of people. He's just saying that any particular black people who might genuinely be unable to succeed because of disadvantages should be helped so that they can then succeed.



I'm sure a paragon of consistency like yourself has no objection when some skeptics accuse Christians of blindly believing their religion only because the idea of an afterlife makes them feel good.

Yes blacks should be helped if necessary not spoon fed everything.

[fm93]

Yes blacks should be helped if necessary not spoon fed everything.

So you and Starlight seem to be in agreement, then.

[Cow Poke]

I have irrefutable evidence that at least one Christian believed primarily because the idea of heaven made him feel good.

I don't doubt that a bit - which is why I said "In some cases, however, they're probably right.

I know this because I was that person, back when I was twelve years old.

That actually explains a lot.

So although the skeptics' canard is a stereotype refuted by many Christians who had much better reasons for believing, I know for a fact that the stereotype isn't completely false.

Ummmm... you're looking for a fight where there isn't one. As I said, "In some cases, however, they're probably right".

Meanwhile, I don't have irrefutable evidence that any liberals believe what they do just because it makes them feel good.

If they genuinely believed what they claimed, they'd give their OWN money, and not try to have the government FORCE them to do it. Like one of Tweb's liberal posters claimed "there's no mechanism to give money to the government", while there most certainly is. OR they could just give huge gobs of it to the needy.

Neither gross generalization of a massive group of people is good, but technically theirs is more demonstrably accurate than yours.

Because some ill tempered blogger (that would be you) gave himself as "the exception"? When I already conceded there WERE exceptions?

Fm, seriously, you need to chill.

[Cerealman]

So you and Starlight seem to be in agreement, then.

Ha.

[fm93]

That actually explains a lot.

I then from age 14 to 20 read everything I could about Christian apologetics and established a rational fortress for belief, and argued tirelessly in defense of Christianity. I have heard so many stories similar to my own--people who "picked" Christianity when they were gullible youths, found themselves in a world of doubt, then discovered some book like Reasonable Faith or website like Tektonics and started trying to become bona fide scholars in everything. These are the people giving themselves eyestrain scouring libraries and the Internet for information to answer the objections and questions that most pastors nowadays seem to just deflect instead of tackling head on.

Because some ill tempered blogger (that would be you) gave himself as "the exception"? When I already conceded there WERE exceptions?

Fm, seriously, you need to chill.

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm voicing my frustrations--that you, whom I deeply respected and admired before the site crash, engage in such blatant gross generalizations of your ideological opponents (behavior that I thought you were too good to engage in). Also that you--someone with pastoral experience, who's supposed to be a trustworthy figure--take something that I had to honestly, humbly and vulnerably admit and use it as an insult against me. I don't feel like fighting--just disappointed and a bit betrayed.

[Cow Poke]

I have irrefutable evidence that at least one Christian believed primarily because the idea of heaven made him feel good. I know this because I was that person...

Hey, since we're playing "anecdotes are proof" here, I'll share mine.

We have a man in our Church who needs a liver transplant. The hospital needs $9,300 before they'll even make an appointment because of the deductibles, copay, and other uncovered expenses.

His wife started a gofundme account, and when I found out about it, I suggested our Church kick in some money.

After the Church Service last Sunday (the first time I mentioned this) one of my more conservative right wing extremist type guys approached me and handed me a check for $10,000 and said "keep this anonymous, but tell her to schedule the surgery".

Did it make him feel good? I hope so! It sure made ME feel good, and you should have seen the lady when I presented her with a Church check in that amount.

HOWEVER --- it was his OWN MONEY that he VOLUNTARILY gave, and nobody snookered him into it, or forced him to give.

God loves a CHEERFUL giver!

[Cow Poke]

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not trying to pick a fight.

My apologies.

I'm voicing my frustrations--that you, whom I deeply respected and admired before the site crash, engage in such blatant gross generalizations of your ideological opponents (behavior that I thought you were too good to engage in).

Ummm... so tell me exactly what I have wrong.

Also that you--someone with pastoral experience, who's supposed to be a trustworthy figure--take something that I had to honestly, humbly and vulnerably admit and use it as an insult against me. I don't feel like fighting--just disappointed and a bit betrayed.

Well, again, if I read you wrong, I sincerely apologize, but, sheeeeesh, you just seem so ... angry.

I'll be happy to start over -- and I already posted my HAPPY story before I read this!

[JimL]

No, MUCH better to punish them for their success, forcing them to give up their earnings and give them to people who aren't as motivated.

You see, CP believes that a government that enacts social policy to help the poor and disadvantaged is "punishment" of the priviliged. What many christians seem to want is a social policy that says screw the poor and the disadvantaged, thats life, deal with it. What amazes me is that he professes to be a christian minister. The hypocrisy, or just plain ignorance of these two contradictory stances is rather baffling, but it seems to be widespread in the christian community. Perhaps the reason for this is because they have preachers like CP.

Here's an idea -- how bout you get your wealthy bleeding heart liberal billionaires to VOLUNTARILY divest themselves of their own earnings, and solve poverty THAT way!

The Jesus portayed in the Bible was a bleeding heart liberal CP who admonished you to give all you have to the poor and follow him. Of course I don't personally subscribe to that, but I am not a christian either.

[Cow Poke]

You see, CP believes that a government that enacts social policy to help the poor and disadvantaged is "punishment" of the priviliged.

No, Jimmy, only certain policies.

What many christians seem to want is a social policy that says screw the poor and the disadvantaged,

That's just typical idiot Jimmycrap.

thats life, deal with it. What amazes me is that he professes to be a christian minister.

Yeah, so?

The hypocrisy, or just plain ignorance of these two contradictory stances is rather baffling, but it seems to be widespread in the christian community. Perhaps the reason for this is because they have preachers like CP.

Actually, Jimmy, I practice what I preach - I advocate voluntary giving, and I also give. And our Church hosts numerous events for the disadvantaged out of our own pockets. So your claims of hypocrisy are just more jackassery from your mother's basement.

The Jesus portayed in the Bible was a bleeding heart liberal CP who admonished you to give all you have to the poor and follow him. Of course I don't personally subscribe to that, but I am not a christian either.

Can you show me where he admonished me to give all to the poor, Jimmy? Perhaps you have me confused with the rich young ruler.

[shunyadragon]

Presumably you will inform me of the answer, as well as how this is relevant to my point which was made regarding class and not race in particular.

Those that are referred to as progressives are responsible for opening up the educational opportunities for blacks, integration, increased voting rights, and greater employment opportunities. The Right Wing cold hearted conservatives opposed all the reforms, and the Dixiecrats became Republicans.

My shunyadragon translator has corrected the wording of your comment; I'm glad you agree with me.

Editing other Tweber's posts unethical, but I guess this SOP for you.

[fm93]

Upon re-reading them, I guess some of my earlier posts did come across as angrier than I'd intended them to be. But I think that's because my mood was influenced by what I saw earlier and am about to elaborate upon now. Re-directing the topic back to privilege...

This is the actual headline of an article published yesterday by the New York Daily News:
Aurora shooter James Holmes loved comedies, hoped feds would lock him away before killing spree

This comes across as an attempt to humanize the murderer. And to be clear, I don't object to the media doing this itself--dismissing someone who commits evil as simply a wicked person can often be overly simplistic and robs us of a chance to better understand how and why people do such things. But it seems to me that there's a massive double-standard here. Sure, this is just one source, but portrayals similar in spirit (i.e. depicting him as a baffling complex individual who may have been caught in the grips of mental illness, the poor fellow) have occurred elsewhere. And try as I might, I can't remember any instances in which an African-American criminal or suspect was treated in such a way by the media. Some media sources humanized Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, but there are a few key differences here:

First of all, at the worst those two might've physically assaulted a watchman/policeman, and even if that's what happened, we don't know that they would've killed him--maybe they just wanted to knock him unconscious so they could run away. (Not that that's okay, but it's not as bad as murder.) James Holmes, on the other hand, actually did shoot at an entire movie theater full of people. I consider that much worse. Second of all, when those humanizing pieces were published, there wasn't any real evidence that those two had done anything bad--there was at least room to doubt it--whereas there is no doubt that James Holmes really shot all those people. Third of all, Martin and Brown also were the subjects of countless media pieces calling them "gangsters" or "thugs," saying they "were no angel," etc--whereas I don't see similar language being used of Holmes. And fourth of all, their humanizing depictions were basically "Martin/Brown was a good high school kid who hoped to/did get accepted to college." That's not quite like what the NYDN did for Holmes.

I mean, really--"James Holmes loved watching popular comedies that you, the reader, probably also watch." Really? For a man who marched into and shot a theater full of innocent civilians, that's kiddie-glove treatment. That's certainly not the type of treatment that I've seen criminals who happen to be African-American receive. At the very least, I don't recall seeing media coverage that made such an effort to portray such favorable aspects of their lives or ponder what led them to do what they did. I don't know that this is necessarily race-based, but there does seem to be a discrepancy along those lines, and it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable conclusion.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, cause everybody knows that Republicans were opposed to Civil Rights, and Democrats championed it, right?

Not really correct for the time the conservative southern Democrats opposed Civil Rights as well as other conservatives. The Dixiecrats of the South became the conservative Republican core of the South. In other words you cannot equate the Democrats as all liberal in the 1960's. It was some Northern Republicans that helped the Democrats pass the Bill.

President Johnson was indeed prophetic when he stated,"The Democratic Party lost the South when we passed the Civil Rights Act."

Enten points out that Democrats still played a key role in getting the law passed.

From your source.

"It was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law," Enten writes.

The fact is the Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act regardless of political party.

[Cow Poke]

Upon re-reading them, I guess some of my earlier posts did come across as angrier than I'd intended them to be. But I think that's because my mood was influenced by what I saw earlier and am about to elaborate upon now. Re-directing the topic back to privilege...

This is the actual headline of an article published yesterday by the New York Daily News:
Aurora shooter James Holmes loved comedies, hoped feds would lock him away before killing spree

This comes across as an attempt to humanize the murderer. And to be clear, I don't object to the media doing this itself--dismissing someone who commits evil as simply a wicked person can often be overly simplistic and robs us of a chance to better understand how and why people do such things. But it seems to me that there's a massive double-standard here. Sure, this is just one source, but portrayals similar in spirit (i.e. depicting him as a baffling complex individual who may have been caught in the grips of mental illness, the poor fellow) have occurred elsewhere. And try as I might, I can't remember any instances in which an African-American criminal or suspect was treated in such a way by the media. Some media sources humanized Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, but there are a few key differences here:

First of all, at the worst those two might've physically assaulted a watchman/policeman, and even if that's what happened, we don't know that they would've killed him--maybe they just wanted to knock him unconscious so they could run away. (Not that that's okay, but it's not as bad as murder.) James Holmes, on the other hand, actually did shoot at an entire movie theater full of people. I consider that much worse. Second of all, when those humanizing pieces were published, there wasn't any real evidence that those two had done anything bad--there was at least room to doubt it--whereas there is no doubt that James Holmes really shot all those people. Third of all, Martin and Brown also were the subjects of countless media pieces calling them "gangsters" or "thugs," saying they "were no angel," etc--whereas I don't see similar language being used of Holmes. And fourth of all, their humanizing depictions were basically "Martin/Brown was a good high school kid who hoped to/did get accepted to college." That's not quite like what the NYDN did for Holmes.

I mean, really--"James Holmes loved watching popular comedies that you, the reader, probably also watch." Really? For a man who marched into and shot a theater full of innocent civilians, that's kiddie-glove treatment. That's certainly not the type of treatment that I've seen criminals who happen to be African-American receive. At the very least, I don't recall seeing media coverage that made such an effort to portray such favorable aspects of their lives or ponder what led them to do what they did. I don't know that this is necessarily race-based, but there does seem to be a discrepancy along those lines, and it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable conclusion.

I'm not ignoring this - I just don't know how to respond.

[JimL]

No, Jimmy, only certain policies.

I be interested to know which specific policies in support of the poor and disadvantaged you would be in favor of the government taxing you for CP.

That's just typical idiot Jimmycrap.

You are right, that was a bit over the top. What I should have said is "what the many socially conservative christians here on tweb seem to want," is social policy that says screw the poor and disadvantaged, thats life, deal with it.

Yeah, so?

So, it amazes me that christians, particulary a christian minister doesn't see the hypocrisy between his religious beliefs and his social stance.

Actually, Jimmy, I practice what I preach - I advocate voluntary giving, and I also give. And our Church hosts numerous events for the disadvantaged out of our own pockets. So your claims of hypocrisy are just more jackassery from your mother's basement.

Then advocate for social policies that do the same. If you believe it is the right thing to do, then you should have no problem with a government whose policies have concern for those same poor and disadvantaged.

Can you show me where he admonished me to give all to the poor, Jimmy? Perhaps you have me confused with the rich young ruler.

Being a minister you should understand that scripture is directed at you, not the individual within the scripture.