Yeah, poor guy's gotta be tired of pretending to be religious.
People can't see an atheist president in the US just like the couldn't see a black president 40 years ago. It is bound to happen, for the greater good.
We in Quebec have had for the last 10 years a great debate about whether religious institutions and governmental institutions should be separate or not. Personally I believe any form of religion should be kept at home. It should not be in school, and it should not be a subject in any political matters. That also means that I don't give a eff what religion people have. For instance, I have no idea what by provincial prime minister's religion is, or even if he has one (though I presume he does).
The dangerous thing about all this is that at some point a politician will come up, shout everywhere that he's atheist and be elected that way. That's hardly better than proclaiming himself religious. The fact is that he shouldn't say he's atheist, he should say nothing at all. When asked 'of what religious affiliation are you?', he should answer 'that's none of your business, kthxbai'. The problem right now is that if you answer that, you're automatically considered atheist.
We in Quebec have had for the last 10 years a great debate about whether religious institutions and governmental institutions should be separate or not. Personally I believe any form of religion should be kept at home. It should not be in school, and it should not be a subject in any political matters. That also means that I don't give a eff what religion people have. For instance, I have no idea what by provincial prime minister's religion is, or even if he has one (though I presume he does).
The dangerous thing about all this is that at some point a politician will come up, shout everywhere that he's atheist and be elected that way. That's hardly better than proclaiming himself religious. The fact is that he shouldn't say he's atheist, he should say nothing at all. When asked 'of what religious affiliation are you?', he should answer 'that's none of your business, kthxbai'. The problem right now is that if you answer that, you're automatically considered atheist.
While I totaly agree with you I don't think that "being atheist" can be an argument to be elected...
And I disagree with this:
Saying to an interviewver that you are christian, muslmin or atheist if he asks you isn't a problem...
The problem is when you insist about what you believe and want everybody to know you are religious or atheist or whathever
And I disagree with this:
Saying to an interviewver that you are christian, muslmin or atheist if he asks you isn't a problem...
The problem is when you insist about what you believe and want everybody to know you are religious or atheist or whathever
Poland is a Catholic country. :hide:
That's typical of the right-wing ideology. If you are successful it's because you worked hard. Hence anyone who isn't successful was lazy, and only has himself to blame. You are ignoring the fact that some people are born in a bad environment. A drug-addicted mom, an abusive dad, a bad neighborhood, etc. They may contract a serious disease. Or they grow up during a worldwide economic crisis. Sometimes it's just dumb luck that decides how you fare.
If you cling to the belief that your own effort is the only determining factor in your life, then you have freed yourself of the obligation to care for your fellow humans. Is anyone poor? Down and out? It's their own fault.
Perhaps you should look up "compassion" in the dictionary.
Well said wsinda imo. 
Alot of people struggle in life because of reasons beyond their control.
major_syphillis : Cool? 'cuz obviously no-one else does that.
</sarcasm>
Alot of people struggle in life because of reasons beyond their control.
major_syphillis : Cool? 'cuz obviously no-one else does that.
</sarcasm>
I agree that a candidate can hardly say, for instance at a debate, "I'm of X religion, vote for me". Just like Obama didn't say "I'm black, vote for me". It just happens by itself, it's the kind of argument that, time helping, will win a candidate the election. It's sad to say, but if Obama had been white, and had stood with the exact same arguments, he would have had a much harder time (although I believe he would still have passed, being younger). I believe that at some point in time, atheism will be the same kind of thing. Although unsaid, it will gain or lose a candidate an election.
Now, going back to the religion thing, if the candidate says at any point in his campaign that he is of X religion, he automatically turns against himself a certain part of the population.
Now, depending on where you are, and depending what religion affiliation you have, the proportion of people to be pissed off will be different. In the United States, if anybody has any reason at all, no matter how far-fetched it is, to believe that a candidate is not Christian, he's going to lose votes, no matter what. That's because there are some stupid Americans who will believe whatever they are told and actually believe that he's not Christian. For example, if they're told he's a Muslim, they will not vote for him. Not because they don't agree with the values the Muslim religion stands for, but simply because he's a Muslim. It's how basic it can be.
And this is why it was a part of the Republican's campaign to undermine Barack Obama by saying he was a Muslim; because they knew it would convince some people that he really is, and they would consequently not vote for him. The GOP in this campaign never tried to undermine the values of the Muslim religion, they don't need to, it already is prejudiced in the American population.
Ah yea seeing things like this you're right 
Spot on booster, the GOP knew that all they had to do was just present the idea (via CNN & Fox) that Obama might have been a muslim because they knew precisely what the reaction would be amongst the more mentally retarded members of their voting base who think that "muslim" automatically means "evil". We had that incident at a McCain rally when some lackwitted woman stood up and started bollocking on about Obama being an Arab like it was some kind of horrible thing, like being a Slytherin or a Cardassian (doesn't she know how close in bed the US and the Saudis are? No, because she probably reads as many newspapers as Sarah Palin) and McCain had to snatch the microphone back to shut her up! He had to resort to defending his freaking opponent! Although, he then said "He's not an Arab, he's a good man" which didn't sound all that great. But that muslim/Arab stuff, those racist redneck ****s on youtube and that geriatric failtard with his monkey dolls were all indicative of the kind of 'fear & loathing & lies' campaign the GOP ran and who they targeted. Spiteful, dishonest, insulting to the intelligence and ultimately counter-productive. If the Republicans want to salvage their once-proud party, I hope some asses are getting kicked out the door. They've been pandering to the loony brigade for far too long - this is the party of Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, for crying out loud. He'd be horrified to see what's become of his baby, held in thrall to the Religious Right whack-jobs - I think steam would totally shoot out the top of his enormous hat.
...and with that, Kev joined the BNP and grew a tiny moustache.
...and with that, Kev joined the BNP and grew a tiny moustache.
Okay. Why would racism be wrong? You cannot prove what someone thinks, and therefore it cannot be wrong. If by racist you purely mean you think your race is superior. Which is how most people think. There's very few people who don't think their race is superior. As long as you don't discriminate, why is it wrong? Unless you believe in thought crimes, of course.
Umm, what kind of ****ed up notion is that? You may think that, but don't drag the rest of us down with that one. You couldn't be farther off base.
(wheel4hummer)
DELETED
by wheel4hummer
The fact that I'm superior doesn't mean my whole race is superior tbh...
You do not agree with it, and therefore it is "****ed up"?
I may think what? That most people are racist? Why yes, I do. If I didn't think that then what would be the point of this argument?
If by off base you mean not in agreement with most people, then I'm fine with you saying that. Because most people probably don't agree with me. But I'm fine with that notion.
I've not met one person who thinks every race is exactly equal. When a black person walks by, you can tell that people get nervous for no reason. You see white women clutch their purses when a black guy walks by. That's not racism? That's not wrong, in my opinion though. If people want to think a certain way, I'm not one to stop them. Or if they act in a non-malicious manner (such as the "purse clutching" phenomenon, no-one is really being harmed. As long as they aren't doing harm to anyone, it's not really a big deal.
That's sort of my point. It's pretty much human nature to find certain people inferior. And, that one finds others most simmilar to oneself more superior then others who are more different. Like people from the United States being harassed and called idiots. All of the people from other countries routinely say "don't worry, you're just stupid because you're from America" or something of the like. This is harassment, and is therefore immoral in my opinion. If you think Americans are stupid, then that's fine. If you call Americans stupid, then that's not moral, because your intent is malicious.
What a load of utter, utter toss. And even if it were true, doesn't make it right that you should too.
I looked around on Google, and found an article that I agree with. Read this article to further understand my viewpoint and to not be blinded by your close mindedness and refusal to accept alternate opinions that vary from the general morals and opinions of society:
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Everyone_is_Racist.html
People only believe that, as that's the image that American projects of itself. If all you knew about a people is that they eat hamburgers, drink coca-cola, wage pointless wars for personal gain and vote idiots as leaders, then that's what you're going to think. I don't personally believe you can categorise an entire country, especially one as large and diverse as America, any one way or the other, but you should seriously consider the reasons why people believe what they believe, and how it's tied to the messages America sends about itself to the world.
Alternative opinions? Ignoring the point that if, as you say, the whole world is like that, it's hardly an 'alternative opinion', why the hell would I decide that I'm 'better' than someone simply because of the amount of pigment in my skin, or on which side of an arbitrary line on a map I was born?
I have read that article and it preaches 'tolerance of the intolerant' which I think is ridiculous and only goes to increase the amount intolerance and bigotry in the world which is an utterly hateful idea. Fair enough I accept that you will never completely get rid of bigotry, but as a reason for not bothering to help stop it? That's both selfish and lazy and is the equivalent of 'you tried and failed - the moral is, never try.'
I don't know, why the hell would anyone decide that they are 'better' than someone simply because of the amount of pigment in their skin, or on which side of an arbitrary line on a map they were born? Answer that and you have answered your own question.
That's just plain silly, and an invalid argument. If that were a valid argument, then wouldn't that also make the argument that the image African Americans project onto themselves is a bunch of bank robbing rapists? Since I don't agree with that argument, I find it conflicting and impossible to agree with your argument.
Do you know many black or multiracial people? Many Arabs or Asians? Personally, I don't, which is why I try to be as neutral as I can. I live in a mostly white only suburb of a very cosmopolitan city, but city I don't work there or spend that much time altogether downtown, pretty much every one I know and see is white.
Therefore, what's the only way for me to judge the Arabs, Asians, or blacks? Through what other people say, which is to say, the media, and what people say on the internet. It's hard to stay neutral, and I think I can safely say that the medias didn't make a racist out of me.
There are other people, however - people that can be influenced more easily than me - which believe what the media say, or what their leaders say, and they, as a community, end up generally hating a country.
The longer a leader stays in function, the harder the feeling about his country will be when he'll leave office. People all around the world hated Bush, and thus the USA. After 8 years of being fed horrid news and ideas about Bush, they consequently hate the USA as much. That's also why the feeling of hope is consequently as great concerning Obama.
Obviously some white supremacists and what-not feel very bad about a multiracial man (proclaimed black by the media) gaining power of one of the world's most powerful country, but generally the opinion about Obama is good.
Followed by...
Using your own argument (such as it is), the burden of proof is now on you to "prove" how "most people" think. I won't hold my breath.
Racism - a discrimination based solely on race - whether it's acted upon or not is illogical, prejudicial, irrational, unfounded and has no basis in fact. These attributes make racism an untenable and unsupportable position. Which makes racism "wrong" in the sense that it's not correct. The racist holds in his mind a mistaken belief that his race is superior to others. This is not right. This is wrong. Incorrect. Unfair. Unjust. Unethical.
Seriously, do I really need to explain why racism is wrong to someone who lives in a country that, for four centuries, used to abduct & trade other humans like they were ****ing farm animals because they were seen as inferior savages? A country that denied them the right to vote & marry interracially & mingle with white people on buses and in schools, all within living memory?
But I'm not trying to accuse anyone of being wrong so why does it matter? My point was telling someone that they are wrong based on what they think if you cannot prove what they think. But I am not saying that everyone sucks because they're racist. I'm just saying that I believe that everyone has prejudices no matter what. Not that it's good or bad, just that it is. Ultimately, I don't really give a shit about anything. But it sure is fun to argue pointlessly. Arguing is just trying to convince other people that you are right. I am trying to make you think like me, and you are trying to make me think like you. I don't anticipate that either of us will be successful. So I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. Unfortunately I couldn't resist my human instinct to try convincing people to follow my morals. Everyone in this thread is trying to tell everyone else that they are wrong. Except the people who are able to resist such urges, like everyone who has posted in this thread. So good night, and I hope never to get in a discussion like this again. Next time I will not even bother trying to explain my own theory. I will just look at the thread, and think "well, I know where I stand on this, and there's no point in telling anyone and getting in a debate over morals as that never turns out well."
come on you should be answering that, you bought that up!
it's part of our natural instinct to have fear towards other race, just ancient instinct in our animal nature that there exists "us" and "them", and "them" are mostly hostile (which is true in the animal world)
but for god sake it is 21st century and our gene pool is widely globalized, culture has cross pollinated and it is pretty clear that racism is irrational fear that we should get over with.
why racism is wrong is because it is an ignorant and lazy judgement on people, and it had it's history of bringing war and suffering, I don't see why people still cling on such idea, especially those Neo Nazis, who just hate everyone not being white for the sake of it.
If you want to make yourself part of the discussion and make broad statements without backing them up and then bail from the discussion at the first hint of a challenge, go ahead.
I completely understand - I used to "accidentally" knock the chessboard over when my brother was about to get me in checkmate. When I was six.
What else is there to discuss? Do you want me to make an argument that I have trouble forming just so that you can try to make me look like even more of an idiot? Or do you want me to tell you that you're right and that I'm wrong and that I'm changing my opinion because someone on a forum told me I'm wrong. OMG YOU HAZ LAST WORD!!!oneone1111 Do you want a ****ing cookie?
you weren't stating your point of view, you are just citing an ambiguous "fact" that "people are racist" without contributing any supporting argument.
Official US Presidential Election Day Thread
(527 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG