Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say that random hostage-taking, feudalism, and the Inquisition (which didn't target solely white people and, horrible as it was, could have its ill effects avoided by "keeping one's mouth shut" and playing along) aren't quite on the same level as genocide & mass-enslavement, not to mention government-enforced third-class citizenship.
That wasn't the point. The point was people let their pursuit for information serve themselves.
That was my point. My instructor took the entire incident and changed its context to proclaim something that was not true.
Thats the point. Because of that, it wouldn't surprise me if you or your studies led you to believe falsities. You keep proving you don't look with your mind, but your emotions every time you speak to me.
That's natural, I have no mind and instead think solely with my emotions. My brain was lobotomized long ago and replaced with an asparagus.
My asparagus's point was that I don't believe this statement to be true:
Quote:
Racism is a problem for all races and it happens on all sides. It was just at that time, it was whites in America oppressing blacks. Its a general concept, a general problem that everyone has experienced in one form or another and in equal levels of oppression throughout the worlds history.
Maybe they have access to the transcript for the whole speech? It is a university website, after all...
Umm, possibly. Which is why I did mention that. Yet, read very carefully from the speech information I could find.
Notice something "fishy"?
How does he go from talking about it being a disease infecting humanity to all of a sudden saying it is a white mans disease? Note that by saying that, he is attributing ownership solely to white people which conflicts with everything he said before.
"Racism is a disease afflicting humanity, but in America it is predominantly a white man's disease."
Maybe he said something like that? I don't know. You don't know either.
Maybe, but then we don't know and even if that were the case, it isn't referred to it that way in the article. Still, that doesn't sound like him. As I said, I have read his work. What I linked sounds like him. What they are claiming doesn't. Even your assumption of what he could have said does not.
Also, all of the sites that display his speech refer to it in the context as I linked. Only the Harvard site makes the claim as it did.
And regarding my imaginary sentence, I certainly don't claim to be able to write like Einstein... and he wouldn't necessarily have said both things in the same sentence.
This is sort of a lame thing to argue about, though, my apologies.
And regarding my imaginary sentence, I certainly don't claim to be able to write like Einstein... and he wouldn't necessarily have said both things in the same sentence.
This is sort of a lame thing to argue about, though, my apologies.
Did you read what he was talking about though in your link? Its not illogical, its just not practical in my opinion. Even he states we need to get past the phases that we were and are in.
Communism and Socialism aren't "evil" concepts if applied with complete adherence and dedication by all its members. The problem is that one cog in the system (not everyone aspires to excel) and it fails.
I mean, if we all share everything in equal distribution, then if everyone is attempting to excel, we all will benefit from it. Thats why they call it a "Utopian" society. In a "vacuum" so to speak, it might work well, but we don't live in one and because we have an imbalanced society where some put a lot of effort and many put none, it would fail miserably.
I found it to be logical myself, I just thought you probably wouldn't, and was wrong.
Also... this is off-topic but I don't think a "socialist" economy would necessarily require everyone to be equal. If there was enough democracy it could conceivably be more "meritocratic" than capitalism, with the highest-paid people in society being those who benefit society the most, aka the doctors, scientists, teachers, etc., rather than hedge-fund people and speculators. This isn't a good thread to get into an argument about that, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
