Just to keep this thread lively, is there anything fundamentally wrong with being a "prude," as you put it?

Other than the tendancy to hinder social advancement? No.

I should have expected that response.

Instead of making another thread, and titling it 'Tin F*cking Can', I've decided to b**ch here.

I hate the little bugger. I cannot stand how he's got to make everyone think his way. I swear if he was just a smidge more angry, and a smidge more intelligent, we'd have another Kazan on the boards for the other side's views... :gah:

Oooh. I wish his balls'd drop so I could kick him square in them.

Yes, yes, everyone look down on me, for I fell into his little trolling trap. No more. I told him to blow me twice. Maybe he'll make good on the offer.

Raa wrote:Other than the tendancy to hinder social advancement? No.

Define social advancement though.

To me it's how we apply our moral and ethical codes to the changes that modern technology brings about, NOT altering our moral and ethical codes to fit the changes uneccesarilly.

Social advancement; the advancement of interaction within a community, and the resulting improvement in co-operation owing to mutual tolerance and understanding.

Essentially 'anything which makes our society better as a whole', where said society is a social group which is as large and disparate as possible.

But Tolerance means you have to accept the Intolerant as well, or else you're intolerant yourself. You, and others of the more liberal persuasion, are seeking to make society PERFECTLY tolerant, which is impossible. Even if I was friends with a gay person on a personal level, I would still be intolerant of their lifestyle and would speak out against it. Somewhere there is a group that you can't tolerate, whether they be some form of Christian or the most heinous Nazi since Hitler.

Not really; or rather not on a sociatal level. There can be said to be 2 basic groups IMO; those who would deny equality, and those who wish to further it.

The former, does damage - by nature it encourages schisms within society. Whilst I would not go so far as to deny free speech, I would say that the most intolerant and those who are loudest about it have the potential to do real damage.

The question is of extremes. If the Nazi has their way, you have an entire subsection of humanity killed (Jews, specifically) or in concentration camps. If, the converse group has their way, then Jewish people are treated the same way.

But it can go too far the other way too, aldo. As an example I'll use the black population of the United States. They've got the equality that Dr. King strived for, had it for many years now in fact, but many still behave as if they are still second-class citizens. Is it my racism and intolerance that makes them behave that way or is the reason internal to that group?(I think it's the lack of a fatherly influence as well as other internal societal influences such as the hip-hop/pimp culture that indirectly encourages criminal behavior to get what they want)

liberator wrote:But it can go too far the other way too, aldo. As an example I'll use the black population of the United States. They've got the equality that Dr. King strived for, had it for many years now in fact, but many still behave as if they are still second-class citizens. Is it my racism and intolerance that makes them behave that way or is the reason internal to that group?(I think it's the lack of a fatherly influence as well as other internal societal influences such as the hip-hop/pimp culture that indirectly encourages criminal behavior to get what they want)

Is it really equal, though? Just because you de-institutionalize or de-lagalize racism, doesn't mean it stops within society, government or businesses (i.e. employers). It can be subconcious, or concious.

Whilst you can point fingers at rap, hip-hop, etc artists, you have to look at why people are susceptible to crime. (What is a 'lack of fatherly influence' anyways?) .... how well funded are schools in areas with a primarily black, (or hispanic, or asian) population? How well funded are police, etc, in said areas? What's the income differentials between such 'aritficially' segregated areas and predominately white ones?

And how is it going to far anyways? Do you want less equality for blacks in America? Because - other than the abolition of affirmative action (which is unfair as it rewards race not ability; and it's a cheap excuse to avoid funding inner city schools or students going to higher education) - that's all I can think of that you mean.

Aldo, in case you weren't aware, eliminating affirmative action programs has been on the to-do list of the Republican party for forty years.

You have a good point but at the same time, with the black community isolating itself, is anything going to change?

Moonsword wrote:Aldo, in case you weren't aware, eliminating affirmative action programs has been on the to-do list of the Republican party for forty years.

And? what's your point?

Moonsword wrote:You have a good point but at the same time, with the black community isolating itself, is anything going to change?

I'm not sure what leads you to conclude that the black community is isolating themselves. Perhaps they don't feel welcome?

Aldo, that's Lib's political affiliation. That was an FYI, nothing more, nothing less. There are some good arguments, very similar to yours, in fact, in favor of that position, but all I was stating was some information.

I live with and around African-Americans, Aldo, as a matter of fact, our RA lives right next to me, and he's black. I don't have a problem with that. Sure, we have different interests, but that's not a problem as far as I'm concerned, and he's a good guy to talk to.

It's the people who hold on to racism as an identity that concern me. Those are the ones I refer to as isolating themselves. They are, to a large extent, those who don't feel welcome.

The funding in public schools *is* unequal in many areas, but that's primarily drawn from the fact that the areas themselves are poorer and to a large extent, education funding is handled at the local level. Yes, something needs to be done, I agree with you. Fixing that would go a long way towards solving problems, by making people more economically equal, and therefore more equal socially and less likely to see differences between each other.

Ok, but bear in mind that political affiliation is not - should not - mean you agree with every viewpoint or position put forward by said party; certainly that's not the way I view it. My perspective is that you pick political parties to fit your opinions, not vice verse, so you can't anticipate peoples complete 'belief set' based on who they last voted for.

There's a difference between treating affirmative action as a problem and as a symptom, though; I'm not sure on what you're (general you) position is, but I regard affirmative action as being somewhat giving up on the concept of a comprehensive education system.... that if you bias towards people by race, then the only reason valid for that is you've failed to give them the same opportunities in the first place.

Are some people of ethnic minorities insular and use racism or preceived racism to justify that? Yes.

Is racism or social deprivation arising from it still a problem? Yes too, I think.

NB: RA?