Shocked & Disgusted

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Beneath the surface and taking a critical look, NO. There are different dynamics at play:

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black? What you offered were reasons -- justifications as to why you think that's fine. That's all well and good, given your obvious problems with this "KKKountry's"h history, but you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black? What you offered were reasons -- justifications as to why you think that's fine. That's all well and good, given your obvious problems with this "KKKountry's"h history, but you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

people are entitled to vote for whoever they want why they want. white people have been doing it for years against candidates of color. and guess what, that's ok. those are personal biases, and people are allowed to have those. big difference between personal bias and unjust law.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

people are entitled to vote for whoever they want why they want. white people have been doing it for years against candidates of color. and guess what, that's ok. those are personal biases, and people are allowed to have those. big difference between personal bias and unjust law.

I think you're mistaking what Kevin's arguing as "OK" versus "acceptable" or "understandable" or "beneficial for the individual/group, outweighing any real or perceived moral or ethical issues" - not that it particularly matters.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you're mistaking what Kevin's arguing as "OK" versus "acceptable" or "understandable" or "beneficial for the individual/group, outweighing any real or perceived moral or ethical issues" - not that it particularly matters.

they're both acceptable AND understandable. everyone is prejudiced, and everyone has personal biases. it's human nature. the only person who needs to understand or accept is the person who is doing the voting. from what i'm reading, he's chastising those who voted for obama based on the color of his skin. while i think that it's a limited reason to vote for a candidate, there's really nothing wrong with it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

they're both acceptable AND understandable. everyone is prejudiced, and everyone has personal biases. it's human nature. the only person who needs to understand or accept is the person who is doing the voting. from what i'm reading, he's chastising those who voted for obama based on the color of his skin. while i think that it's a limited reason to vote for a candidate, there's really nothing wrong with it.

Maybe I wasn't clear - I see exactly where you're coming from. It's not at all where Kevin is - you're arguing something he's not saying.

I agree with you, by the way, from a pragmatic standpoint - that doesn't mean there aren't "issues" with voting based on race, it's just that you and I understand that other issues win out.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

you're arguing something he's not saying.

this is what he said......

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's just as offensive to be against the man because of his race as it is to support him because of his race.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation. How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black?

Originally Posted by Kevin

you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

this is what i said......

Originally Posted by starang21

people are entitled to vote for whoever they want why they want.

i'm basically telling him that both are ok. if someone wants to not vote for obama because he's black, there's nothing wrong with that. if someone wants to vote for obama because he's black, there's nothing wrong with that, either.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by starang21

this is what he said......








this is what i said......



i'm basically telling him that both are ok. if someone wants to not vote for obama because he's black, there's nothing wrong with that. if someone wants to vote for obama because he's black, there's nothing wrong with that, either.

It's actually....surreal....watching other people debate over how and why Black people vote...heh

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black?

"Moral equivalent" is the surface level. If you only deal with surface level then it would appear to be the same thing, as I stated in my post. I don't deal with surface level so...we can end this transaction because I'm typing about stuff beyond the surface.

*****

I have already visited both sides of this issue because I heckled and challenged staunch Democrats and Obama supporters for months. But, although it is fun to heckle, I always knew the different dynamics at play and am looking forward to my colleagues' analyses of this election as another illustration of the dynamics of race, class, gender (sexual orientation, etc.) in America. That's the critical approach to our social world that requires more than just "they do it and we do it...it looks the same to me because humans are suddenly removed from our social roles and statuses."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

"Moral equivalent" is the surface level. If you only deal with surface level then it would appear to be the same thing, as I stated in my post. I don't deal with surface level so...we can end this transaction because I'm typing about stuff beyond the surface.

Yea!!!! You're back (at least for a while). You've been missed!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Yea!!!! You're back (at least for a while). You've been missed!

On the surface level it looks like I'm a newbie!

But getting beyond the surface, there are some things going on that makes my new username different than the other new usernames. However, Kevin would have me go to the newbie thread just like everyone else because it's all the same based on the join date and post count.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

However, Kevin would have me go to the newbie thread just like everyone else because it's all the same based on the join date and post count.

Folks are putting a lot of words into my mouth these days.

Welcome back, btw. You were missed.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black?

I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.

If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between

1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and

2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.

It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.

If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between

1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and

2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.

It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.

Outstanding post! Very well-put.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.

If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between

1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and

2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.

It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.

You have to assume an awful lot of your premises to reach your conclusion. Hypothetically, that could be happening, but I think you are assuming that there's a logical and good thought process going on here. In many cases, that might be right. In others, not.

Your method here assumes away a lot of the premises which went into my hypo without hazarding to explain how, in the very simple example I gave, with nothing else added, voting for a man just because he is black isn't the analog of voting for a man just because he's white.

Look, yes, of course, some folks view this as maybe a confirmation of the American dream. But do you really want to ascribe such a complex and moral thought process to the folks in Harlem who were all for Obama's stance that we must stay the course in Iraq so that we can achieve final victory?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.

If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between

1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and

2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.

It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.

I agree and this goes back to the different dynamics beyond the surface level. You're just coolererer than I am.

I don't think this is a basic moral argument so even this would be too deep to counter the shallow assertion of the "moral equivalent." I see the moral equivalent as being about "what good people do versus bad people do...good people wouldn't make a negative OR positive judgment with race as a factor."