Shocked & Disgusted

[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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

We're both assuming; I admitted my assumptions. What you posited upthread includes the assumption that someone for whom race was a factor in voting for (or against) Obama cast their vote solely based of race, without any other factor coming into play. You assume that there is not a logical and good thought process going on here. As you say, in many cases you may be right. In others, not.

The difference between where we came out, given our assumptions, is that you made an absolute statement that I am not willing to agree with. You asked "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?" My point was simply to provide one example of how such a scenario would not, in my opinion, be morally equivalent.

You say I assumed away a lot of your premises, but you asked a broad question. I was not suggesting that my scenario was a universal one (say, exemplified by the three people Howard Stern found in Harlem). That's why I started with a clearly-stated assumption and why I parenthetically qualified that there "can" be a moral or ethical difference.

The point is simply that blanket statements or assertions such as you made don't work here. The question is simply too complex for that.

[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."

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Hopefully you won't mind my having a mild chuckle at that when I think about the timing of that phrase's creation....

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Hopefully you won't mind my having a mild chuckle at that when I think about the timing of that phrase's creation....

Not at all. I thought of that as well.

Actually, the phrase came to mind because I heard an African-American soldier stationed in Iraq (or Afghanistan) quote it in an interview on CNN yesterday morning. It's stuck with me.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

i find this thought process interesting. what perspective hasn't been there before? i don't think that he would act any differently in certain situations than many other democrats. and considering that much his cabinet could very well be former clinton people, is it accurate to say that this perspective hasn't been there before?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by starang21

i find this thought process interesting. what perspective hasn't been there before? i don't think that he would act any differently in certain situations than many other democrats. and considering that much his cabinet could very well be former clinton people, is it accurate to say that this perspective hasn't been there before?

Maybe I was speaking a little too obliquely. By "in the Oval Office" I meant sitting in the chair behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I meant that, though recent presidents have certainly had the benefit of African-American Secretaries and advisors, none has had the personal perspective or life-experiences of an African-American. It's the idea that a voter has some sense that "the President, from his own experience, has a clue what life is like for me." That's all.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe I was speaking a little too obliquely. By "in the Oval Office" I meant sitting in the chair behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I meant that, though recent presidents have certainly had the benefit of African-American Secretaries and advisors, none has had the personal perspective or life-experiences of an African-American. It's the idea that a voter has some sense that "the President, from his own experience, has a clue what life is like for me." That's all.

ok, so he's black. he's also still a democrat, a politician, and a man. he still has to fix problems for a country that is 2/3 white. and most of the problems aren't race specific, and affect all americans. call me nuts, but him being black is not going to factor into decision and policy making in anyway.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe I was speaking a little too obliquely. By "in the Oval Office" I meant sitting in the chair behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I meant that, though recent presidents have certainly had the benefit of African-American Secretaries and advisors, none has had the personal perspective or life-experiences of an African-American. It's the idea that a voter has some sense that "the President, from his own experience, has a clue what life is like for me." That's all.

exactly and that also is in part why McCain didn't get many votes from the Black community...most of us can't relate to him and surely even fewer can relate or agree with Palin and her policies.....


Altho having a teen duaghter pregnant and a drop out son in law (still babydaddy at this point tho) does give her a tiny bit of street cred.....