Political stereotypes you hate

Post Reply New Topic

erm, greenblue, I'm pretty sure the Nazis were evil. the whole final solution - governement policy of exterminating a set of ethnic group/s, the disabled and members of the political left (the first sent to the camps were the communists) on an industrial scale is radically evil in the Kantian sense (if I understand it right).

the ones i hate:
all marxists = stalinists
african-americans like to riot
the homeless want to be homeless
(in Britain) northerners wear flat caps
muslims are violent
americans love guns

on a lighter note:
adam sandler movies are funny

This one also isn't a stereotype as some of the people literally believe that fetuses are people, so them calling choice murder is correct.

Seconded.

You wouldn't believe how many times I have been stalked by the PETA and Greenpeace people at my university. Greenpeace has actually committed terrorist acts.

And the reason more people are dying in hurricanes is because more people live on the coast, not because we have more frequent and more powerful hurricanes due to global warming. (In fact, we are more likely entering another ice age.)

Stereotype = doubleplusungood. Apparently :\

and those people need a sociology class or three to understand the difference.


/as if THAT's the problem with our crime-ridden culture of ignorance

***delete***

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 27 Jul 2009, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pretty much, as this is not the first "stereotype" that isn't about people but rather claims that a philosophical view is a stereotype.

No, but the social ramifications and impact of legalized abortion isn't understood and, at the end of the day, there is not enough social impact to warrant it being a crime and making it illegal would impact society in a far worse manner than it being legal.

Not to mention technically a fetus isn't a legal citizen so therefore has no right of protection. Not to mention also that it would also cost the courts money for every single miscarriage that would have to be investigated as a possible improper aborted pregnancy.


Sociological impact.

The "philosophical" argument is a load of garbage used by the controlling religious powers to still impart their will on others. Much like they've done with various drug prohibitions over the years even though it's pretty obvious that drug prohibition causes more murders, thefts, joblessness, and overall crime (not including the actual arrest for possession of an illicit substance) than having the substances remain legal. The idea of "personhood" is a lame cop out to avoid the basic fact that the line of birth is the most clear-cut and obvious line and is all a ploy to empower the various religious organizations through regulation of one's sexual life.




Shared morality is a destructive myth and is merely a parody of sociological truth.

"Social impact" isn't necessarily the reasoning behind illegalizing something. There isn't likely a lot of social impact in allowing small children to be killed, as after all, there is little economic damage done by doing this. There isn't likely a lot of social impact by allowing animal cruelty or even allowing animal fights, but we still illegalize it. To say that "social impact" is the proper measure of criminality is to make a philosophical statement that cannot be justified.

Being a legal citizen has nothing to do with legality. Animals are not legal citizens but most people favor some amount of protection for animals. Not only that, but the nature of "legal citizenship" as it is currently expressed, isn't some properly basic idea but rather emerges from a web of assumptions. Would people even find it a good thing for a bunch of madmen to go around killing illegal immigrants? I certainly wouldn't want such an action to be tolerated.


I never said that the philosophical argument is a great argument, but one cannot deny that this is a philosophical question.

The line of birth is a completely arbitrary line. As what about premature births? What about a few days before the child would normally be born? Both of those situations highlight a pre-existing arbitrariness as neither shows a clear-cut between in the fetus and outside other than location, which is a morally arbitrary factor. Personhood is important because killing persons is considered morally wrong, and not for social reasons either, but rather because people see the idea of another person being killed to be repugnant. You can disagree


That depends on what we mean by shared morality. After all, for one, I doubt that sociology denies the existence of shared morality within a society, for if morality weren't shared, then the legitimacy of common norms couldn't exist, and without that, there is little reason to call something a society. Because of that, you might actually be referring to anthropology, which analyzes multiple societies, rather than sociology which analyzes a single society.

In addition, I do think that most people do share some aspect of moral intuitions, a major one of them is that murder is wrong. The issue is just how this intuition is shaped, as obviously dehumanization is a tool that people use in order to have a clear conscience when killing another being.

Finally, sociological truth is a separate body than moral truth, and few people deny moral truth. If you ask a person if genocide is wrong, they literally mean that for all peoples within all societies, genocide is wrong, not that "genocide is wrong" is just what my culture says to regulate social behavior. As such, you are taking a philosophical stand that the common view is wrong, and the rest of society is just disagreeing with you.

Governments, particularly American ones, socialise losses for a simple reason - the cult of the amateur running government and the cult of the businessman politician. Thus, a businessman takes up the "not real job" of government and is loyal to his business and empties the state coffers into his business to which he is loyal... that's the bottom line really. It's not quite as crude as that in practice but that's really what it's all about. They don't believe in people loyal to the idea of being in the government, only businessmen who milk the government for their own businesses. You have politicians also bought by business lobbies... mostly those amateurs who worship them beyond all else.

Getting back to the original topic, I've posted at length in this forum before trying to repudiate the many stereotypes I encounter as a gun owner and enthusiast, including but not limited to:

The only reason to own a gun is to kill/hurt people

Gun owners must all be paranoid and/or racist hillbillies

An interest in firearms can only be a sign of mental instability

etc etc ad nauseum

On the non-firearms front, and since it seems to come up so often lately, I'll add:

All libertarians/capitalists are disciples of Ayn Rand

Rand herself disavowed the libertarians, and far from all of us are enamored of her, let alone disciples. I tend to view her as an opinionated author, if anything it's her ideological opponents that have elevated her to the status of ideologue, I think it was Noam Chomskey that called her "the most evil woman of the 20th century", a ringing endorsement coming from him.

Perhaps one addition.
Owning a gun does not imply the capability to hurt/kill people

also, this interesting one:
"Guns don't kill people, people do."


You are right! that's not the only reason, other reasons would be to kill/hurt animals, to commit suicide, to intimidate people, and some others, oh and as a sport.


Right, that can't be the only sign but the (judge)mental and/or emotional stability of most people is quite uncertain.

What about precision target shooting? What about hunting non-human animals?

Do you ever stop to think about what you are writing?

ruveyn

Read the intent of the thread, ruveyn.

I read what is written. It is a genetically wired way with me. I never read between the lines. At first it was because I couldn't and at last it is because I won't. Let he who writes and speaks guard his words. It is not up to the reader or the listener.

ruveyn