PC friday question of the day.

[CountValentine]

I hear your point.

Here's a question: have you ever been a target of bigotry? If yes, what do you think/know/believe about the thinking/motivation of the bigot?

Yes and what you would call class envy or they believe that I believe I am better than them.

[aygart]

So is Stephen Miller a white supremacist? Calling someone a white supremacist and then attacking their ideology based on your labeling of them as such is just as disingenuous.

Leaving Stephen MIller out of it since a debate about an individual is only distracting. On the second point I totally agree. That would fit into those using it for their own selfish purposes.

[CountValentine]

Leaving Stephen MIller out of it since a debate about an individual is only distracting. On the second point I totally agree. That would fit into those using it for their own selfish purposes.

Be careful now. So labeling someone an anti-Semite and then attacking their ideology based on your labeling of them as such is just as disingenuous?

[aygart]

Be careful now. So labeling someone an anti-Semite and then attacking their ideology based on your labeling of them as such is just as disingenuous?

Yes. The attack is because the ideology is worth attacking and that is what makes them an anti-semite not the other way around.

[CountValentine]

Yes. The attack is because the ideology is worth attacking and that is what makes them an anti-semite not the other way around.

Yes you agree to my question?
I am not following the second part.

[aygart]

Yes you agree to my question?
I am not following the second part.

Titles are meaningless since they are thrown around to make ad-hominem attacks. The issue is the ideology. Either the ideology is worth attacking or it isn't.

[CountValentine]

Titles are meaningless since they are thrown around to make ad-hominem attacks. The issue is the ideology. Either the ideology is worth attacking or it isn't.

So if I attack Trump for what I feel are racist comments/actions am I attacking his ideology?

[aygart]

So if I attack Trump for what I feel are racist comments/actions am I attacking his ideology?

yes.

[CountValentine]

yes.

Ok so I should say his comments and actions are racist but not call him a racist. Fail to see the difference.

[aygart]

Ok so I should say his comments and actions are racist but not call him a racist. Fail to see the difference.

You can call him a racist as a result of your evalutation of ideology but not

attacking their ideology based on your labeling

If the ideology is is worth attacking then it is worth attacking. Throwing around a label does not change that one way or the other. The question is whether the attack came because of the label or the label came because of the attack.

[hvaces42]

What ☝️ said. I withdraw my comment regarding Miller. But that was my point not so elegantly put.

[TimT]

It’s going to be a nice & quiet day. I can just feel it

[Definitions]

Impossible

-1

גנבא אפום מחתרתא רחמנא קרי

Who was watching his lips and not confronting him? What happened to לא תעמוד? Is he a ganev or a gazlen?

When I say impossible I mean that the person at MINIMUM temporarily does not believe what they're doing is wrong. It can be for different reasons. Sort of like when a person is intoxicated and does something dangerous. It's just a matter of not being fully conscious. And for the record I RARELY, if ever, believe this to be the case in a religious matter. I'll be much quicker to say that obviously the person's beliefs weren't what they say or think it is.

I believe that people always act logically except when under the influence of drugs.

Honestly there is angry people acting illogically which also does seem to be not like what I'm saying. But I'm not sure about that yet. I also don't really think anger or any natural emotion is in the same category as drugs that take away consciousness.

I'm pretty sure that most people would agree with what I'm saying. If not please tell me your thoughts

[aygart]

Who was watching his lips and not confronting him? What happened to לא תעמוד? Is he a ganev or a gazlen?

When I say impossible I mean that the person at MINIMUM temporarily does not believe what they're doing is wrong. It can be for different reasons. Sort of like when a person is intoxicated and does something dangerous. It's just a matter of not being fully conscious. And for the record I RARELY, if ever, believe this to be the case in a religious matter. I'll be much quicker to say that obviously the person's beliefs weren't what they say or think it is.

I believe that people always act logically except when under the influence of drugs.

Honestly there is angry people acting illogically which also does seem to be not like what I'm saying. But I'm not sure about that yet. I also don't really think anger or any natural emotion is in the same category as drugs that take away consciousness.

I'm pretty sure that most people would agree with what I'm saying. If not please tell me your thoughts

Do you mean to say that people in a way that is logical in their mind unless they are acting emotionally or impulsively or didn't put thought into it or have a bias or something else? I guess so.

[Definitions]

Do you mean to say that people in a way that is logical in their mind unless they are acting emotionally or impulsively or didn't put thought into it or have a bias or something else? I guess so.

Even when there are emotions. It never leaves logic out of the picture totally. They go to the edge of logic.

[aygart]

Even when there are emotions. It never leaves logic out of the picture totally. They go to the edge of logic.

If I am understanding correctly you are including as acting logically anything that has any influence of logic even if a fully logical process would lead to very different choices. Okay, then unless someone is shikur k'Lot from alchohol or something else with similar effects that would be the case. But the logic may be pretty twisted.

[Yehuda57]

Even when there are emotions. It never leaves logic out of the picture totally. They go to the edge of logic.

Your definition of logical action is illogical

[CountValentine]

Your definition of logical action is illogical

Now that is illogical. 

[CountValentine]

Can wait until tomorrow. 

Would you be able to be an impartial juror in the impeachment trial?

[gingyguy]

Can wait until tomorrow. 

Would you be able to be an impartial juror in the impeachment trial?

I would have said yes had you asked me this 6 months ago. Unfortunately that probably is no longer the case