Shocked & Disgusted

[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 DaemonSeid

Been to West Virginia lately?

West Virginia, or at least parts of it, is the exception, not the rule.

Thank God for that.

[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.

[lovespink88]

Originally Posted by madmax

Everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they have the same opinion as you and if they don't then they are racists.

WHOA not at all what I said! I really don't think I could have been any more clear, so I'm not going to rephrase, but simply copy and paste from my original letter. Maybe I'll put some bolds in there to help you out since you couldn't get it the first time. I said:

"I’m not accusing all McCain supporters of being against Obama just because he’s black. Everyone has their differences in opinions about political issues and I know these are reasons that many people disagree on candidates."

Is that better for you? Your accusation makes no sense whatsoever.

The people I were calling racist were people who said the following (and just as a reminder these are NOT my words):
- That Obama is a poison and sin to the country because he just wants money for the dirty black people like himself
- That said "It's called the White House for a reason"
- That said "FREE FRIED CHICKEN AND KOOL AID AT GRANK PARK"
- That said, "Get your guns, there's a coon in the White House"
etc....

THOSE are the people I am calling racist. Learn to read, and don't put words in my mouth.

Now as far as why I voted for Obama...I really don't HAVE to explain myself to anyone, especially you, but I guess I will anyways. Between the candidates, I agreed with him on more issues than McCain. I'm not saying Obama's perfect because no candidate could ever be perfect. But between the two, I think that he has more promise.

Is that acceptable for you?





Now, some of you brought up some points that I regrettably failed to address in my letter. Racism certainly does go more than one way, and I know that there are people that voted for him just BECAUSE he's black. I don't think those things are justifable or right either.

Basically, I wrote this because I just didn't expect to see it. It made me realize just how bad racism still is, no matter who it's directed towards. I use these examples because it is what I am seeing happening in front of me.

[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.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by Kevin

West Virginia, or at least parts of it, is the exception, not the rule.

Thank God for that.

Having been many, many times to Huntington, Charleston, and Beckley I must agree here.

[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?

[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

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

the only person who needs to understand why an individual votes a particular way is that individual.

[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.