Community organiser in chief finding it hard to get by without dog in his life

[Aeson]

Actually no it wouldn't be exactly the same, and the idea that it would be is to ignore hundreds of years of American history. When you keep a race of people in slavery and oppression then when they finally manage to have a member of that race capable of achieving the highest office in the land it is ridiculous to not expect a vast turnout for that candidate.

We aren't talking about expectations. I would of course expect there to be racially motivated votes on both sides.

Putting that down to 'racism' is nonsensical.

Voting for someone based on their race rather than their qualifications is definitely a form of racism. You are essentially placing race as a more important factor in judging a person than who the person actually is.

You can also safely assume that Obama received a large number of votes from whites who wanted to ensure America finally got a black president. Are they racist too for wanting to ensure a fair America where people of all races can aspire to any elected position in the land?

Also a form of racism, and detrimental to the cause of equality.

We should strive to elect (and otherwise judge) by the content of their character ... not the color of their skin. Reversing the past's racially motivated evaluations to discriminate against others based on the color of their skin is part of the problem.

[Aeson]

41 percent of whites voting for Obama is apparently more of an indication of white racism than 2 percent of black folks voting for Romney. To me that signifies that white people are 20x as likely to vote for someone not of their race as black folks.

It actually suggests that it's a fairly even % who vote based on race if you look at how the same groups vote when race is not an issue. (There's still a lot of room for error based on other factors though.)

[Aeson]

Like I said, it's the typical argument of white liberal americans that the Catholic church is an evil and that the Phillippines would be better off without it than with it. I can't support this prejudice.

You're the one claiming what the Catholic church did was a bad thing. I'm just pointing out to you that the Catholic church actually did the thing you are (ignorantly) railing against me "doing".

Again, your prejudice that Catholicism is an evil, but Islam is not is exactly what I am getting at.

I haven't addressed whether or not Catholicism or Islam are evil or not. It's all you.

Like I said, you're totally in favor of the 'white man's burden'; which is why you're in the Phils in the first place. You believe you can advance their culture to what you believe is civilization.

No. The "white man's burden" was to go run other people's lives/nations in a patronizing manner while converting them to the "true faith(s)". It wasn't to actually help people (regardless of skin color) who are born into difficult circumstances by giving them a measure of economic freedom so they could choose for themselves how to live their life.

The first is what the Catholic church did. The second is what I'm trying to do.

The fact that you can't see the difference between those two types of motivations shows clearly what an awful human being you are.

And I haven't even gotten to contraception yet.

I wouldn't expect you to have gotten to it yet. Perhaps someday you will meet a nice woman, settle down, and it could possibly become an issue then.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're the one claiming what the Catholic church did was a bad thing. I'm just pointing out to you that the Catholic church actually did the thing you are (ignorantly) railing against me "doing".

No, you're one asserting what the Catholic church did was:

1, a bad thing, which is the standard line and that:
2, you're not doing the exact same thing for the exact same motivations.

I haven't addressed whether or not Catholicism or Islam are evil or not. It's all you.

The argument, "Not all Filipinos are Catholic" is an argument against Catholicism as an intrinsic part of Filipino society, and an argument that religion should not be an intrinsic part of society. You're arguing that insofar as some Filipinos are not Catholic that therefore, there is no connection between Filipino society, Catholicism and Filipinos.

This is very much an American liberal worldview, and the sad part is, you don't even perceive this to be the case. I'd say it was an American, but I know Americans who believe differently that religion and society are fundamentally connected and that altering one alters the other in a negative fashion.

No.

You believe the Phils are overpopulated and should have fewer children. Yes? No?

was to go run other people's lives/nations in a patronizing manner while converting them to the "true faith(s)".

Look around you Aeson.

It wasn't to actually help people (regardless of skin color) who are born into difficult circumstances by giving them a measure of economic freedom so they could choose for themselves how to live their life.

Oh. So Cecil Rhodes wasn't motivated by the betterment of society as a whole - to drag the entirety of the human race out of the muck of backwardness and into Christian civilization? You need to look again. Sure, some weren't motivated by this - but many were, and many share the exact same sentiments that you do - that your society is superior, theirs is inferior and that modernity is necessary in order for the Progress to begin.

Again, I do not think you are motivated by a desire to hurt the Filipinos. There's a fine line between helping them in what they need help and in helping them in where they do not. I believe that Filipino culture, as is, is in many ways superior to the West. You disagree. Hence my concern for the preservation of their culture.

The fact that you can't see the difference between those two types of motivations shows clearly what an awful human being you are.

You are unfamiliar with the literature. Many of the Victorian-era Imperialists were very much motivated by improving the standards of living conditions of their colonies. This is why for example, education was freely provided to children - infrastructure improved and the general well being of colonies increased. There is no difference between what you are doing now and what Robert Maitland Brereton (someone I would be very surprised if you know) did.

Please take a look at what the man himself wrote, and see if you cannot find yourself in him.

I wouldn't expect you to have gotten to it yet. Perhaps someday you will meet a nice woman, settle down, and it could possibly become an issue then.

It's really the core of the dispute, is it not? You believe there are too many Filipinos and I believe there are not enough of them.

[kentonio]

Voting for someone based on their race rather than their qualifications is definitely a form of racism. You are essentially placing race as a more important factor in judging a person than who the person actually is.

Absolutely not the case. Voting for a black candidate because you think it would be positive to have a black president after centuries of white ones, is not racism. That is simply not what racism means, sorry.

Also a form of racism, and detrimental to the cause of equality.

Says you. Luckily an awful lot of people disagree.

We should strive to elect (and otherwise judge) by the content of their character ... not the color of their skin. Reversing the past's racially motivated evaluations to discriminate against others based on the color of their skin is part of the problem.

Which is easy to say when you're a member of the race that has historically been on top.

[kentonio]

So which is it, Kentonio? Should black people finally move beyond blaming white people for all their problems and accept personal responsibility - or should we extend the natural consequence of collective responsibility, in blaming people not for their own actions, but for the actions of their ancestors?

**** you, you racist *****.

[Ben Kenobi]

It actually suggests that it's a fairly even % who vote based on race if you look at how the same groups vote when race is not an issue. (There's still a lot of room for error based on other factors though.)

So far it's not looking good for the argument that 'black people are equally open-minded and tolerant of other races than white folks'.

[Ben Kenobi]

**** you, you racist *****.

I'm not quite sure how Obama adequately represents the plight of African Americans and their families who were enslaved. He has slaveholding ancestors. On his black side. What does it matter if the master simply changes the shade of his skin to a slightly darker tone?

[Ben Kenobi]

when you're a member of the race that has historically been on top.

Small comfort to the Sardinians.

[Sava]

i wish everyone would ignore you too

then i would never see your sickening posts

you are the worst person i know

probably ever... in my life

and i knew a kid in school who got arrested for selling crack

you are worse than him

[giblets]

i wish everyone would ignore you too

then i would never see your sickening posts

Don't be so sure about that... he has argued with himself in the past...

[Sava]

Don't be so sure about that... he has argued with himself in the past...

i used to pity him because i thought he had some sort of neurological issues

i'm sure he does

but now i just dont care

my empathy is reserved for people who aren't absolutely horrible

[PLATO]

The insinuation that 98% of black people voting for Obama is racist and the nature of how you set up the dichotomy is itself obviously racist.

Bull****. You are an idiot. A very close friend of mine who was a civil rights photographer and close friend of Jim Mock told me specifically, "Yeah, I'm voting for him because he is black...It's our turn"

You cannot get any closer to civil equality thought than this man is and he has no problem admitting that his vote for Obama is racist.

In fact, the very fact that you don't know that most Blacks will openly admit that their vote for Obama was at least partially racist, says volumes about you and how you actually interact with Blacks.

You may not realize it, but you are clearly the racist here and your post exposes you without you even knowing it.

[Aeson]

Absolutely not the case. Voting for a black candidate because you think it would be positive to have a black president after centuries of white ones, is not racism. That is simply not what racism means, sorry.

It definitely is racism. Just a type of racism you seem to think is good.

I disagree. The world will be a lot better place when/if everyone just drops race as a concept altogether. Obama is a well-off American, much like Romney and most (if not all) other candidates for President over my lifetime. None of them actually represent the poor or repressed in any meaningful way.

Says you. Luckily an awful lot of people disagree.

It's funny to argue with people who can't accept their racism is racism, but I disagree with you that it's good there are people who harbor racism without realizing it. I'd prefer it if they just dropped race as a concept altogether since my amusement isn't more important than the good of humanity.

Which is easy to say when you're a member of the race that has historically been on top.

It's also easy to say when you want to speak the truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

We don't get this very often. A three way with three different, distinct opinions...

The Catholic church of course did some very bad things in it's history. That is not to say the Catholic church is evil.

Absolutely true - but they did many good things too. Much of why the Philippines is doing well now is because of their faith not in spite of it. I don't believe that it's all about the Church either, I think the Americans did a good job in the Philippines, and that the Philippines having the close connection to America is a good thing. And I'm not even an American...

What I do and my motivations for doing so are quite different.

Again, the motivations between you and the Catholic missionaries is not so different. Bringing civilization to those who don't have it. Wanting to better their way of life.

But it's good for laughs since you are railing against my supposed actions, and claiming they are the same as the Catholic actions, which instead of having a problem with you deify

I like much of what you are doing. I think that much of what you do is a good thing. But I think that there are areas where you do not have it right, and that it's a package deal for you. You help them because you have a concept of what the good life is for them, that is contrary to what is there at present. In many different ways.

The statement is one of fact.

Do you believe that Catholicism is an intrinsic part of Filipino society?

I'm somewhat surprised that you would claim that when the Catholic church was introduced to the Philippines it altered their religion and thus altered their society in a negative way

How was it altered in a negative way?

Why do you hate the Catholic church so much?

Why do you?

I also believe that willingly bringing another child into the world when you can't provide for it is a bad decision. I think the best solution is to increase the ability of people to provide for themselves and their families so that they can choose to have children if they want, and be able to take good care of them. Which is of course part of what I am trying to do here.

I got into a terrible row with Lancer over this as well when I found out some of what he was doing over there... It's important that it start with the child as a person, not as a burden or another mouth to feed. Ideally, everyone would be able to provide for themselves and their children, but this does not always happen. the Western outlook puts the desire on prosperity for the sake of prosperity, that in bettering their living conditions, that their lives will be happier and the children will be better off. Children, family life, community, religion, all take a backseat. I think that's a backwards look at it.

Start with the community, the religion, the children and then work on the prosperity. Prosperity as a servant to higher goals and not a goal in and of itself.

I'm not sure why you have such a problem with helping alleviate poverty or helping people realize the ability to choose what they want

I have a problem with poverty being used as an excuse for all other terrible wrongs. "That in order to alleviate the burden of the poor, we need fewer poor people". Sponsoring abortion, contraception, sterilization with the goal of helping the society cope with what is perceived as too many people is very much the goal of many folks in the west, and their target is the Philippines and many other countries. I see the literature and the handwringing on this side of the line, and it frustrates me.

you seem to think that the world's poor should stay poor so that they can have lots of children they can't adequately care for.

You see children as a mouth to feed and not a blessing. This is a profoundly distorted worldview.

Why do you hate the poor and children so much?

Why do you?

Look around you Aeson. I see palm trees out the window. My laptop on the table. And Net sitting nearby. Who, incidentally, is now able to go to Church whenever she wants as we have motorized transport available. Before, she often couldn't go when living here because it's a long, long walk and often too rainy/muddy. She also has many more resources that she can donate to her faith, family, and community if she so chooses.

And her own family? You said, "I should just sit and accept the reality that in order to be with someone that I love that I need to use contraception in order to get there." That's a pretty ****ty worldview, IMO.

You're already using the poor people as a club that 'unless I agree with you I must hate the poor.' That's not helping the poor, that's making yourself look better.

I know you think this is an evil change that I've brought. I guess you're just a horrible human being who wants people to be trapped by poverty so they can't choose what they want.

Not all choices are good ones. It's not about choices, it's about serving God, or at least that should be what it's about. Do you go to Mass with Net?

The idea that they had to be shown the light of Christianity is exactly what you're railing against. You're just too stupid to realize it.

The idea that they had to be 'improved with the progress of the West', is exactly what you're railing for, and you don't see it. Same cause, different methods.

I think that people should be free to choose.

To choose what? To kill their children? To use contraception? That doesn't sound like freedom. Is freedom of choice that important to you that it would supercede someone's religious faith?

they aren't actively harming others by doing so.

So what then about abortion? Doesn't that 'actively harm another person'?

Is it enough 'not to actively harm', but instead to do what we can to love and help one another?

Filipino culture was rather westernized (and/or easternized by Korean and Japanese influences) already before I got here.

But you see my point here?

The fact that Filipinos generally have to go overseas to find good jobs has definitely accelerated the process of cultural exchange. Those who go overseas adopt new traditions, which they bring home and (generally) make popular because ... people like to emulate the rich.

Which is both good and bad. Good in improving the livelihood, bad in that not all the influences that are brought back to the Philippines are positive ones.

You're just too stupid to realize your fantasies about situations you are entirely ignorant of are not reality.

Nope, I'm pretty sure I'm spot on about what's going on there, and your opinions on many of these things. I've seen enough of them over the years. People seem to assume that I don't have a clue how liberals work or think.

[qutoe] There are lots of people throughout history I don't know about. Billions of them in fact.[/quote]

So educate yourself on this one, please. His reflections will be helpful.

Colonization was as a whole very destructive of the native culture.

Which is the standard boilerplate that everyone in a liberal democracy is taught because we are all taught to hate western culture prior to 1960.

For instance, the witch doctor that I gave a donation to (and often allow the family use of my vehicle to transport to and from) when a family member is sick is the same type of witch doctor that existed here hundreds, perhaps thousands of years before the Spanish brought Catholicism to the Philippines. The Catholics (at least at certain times history) would have likely burned such a person at the stake as a heretic. I give a donation, and then also help pay for the real doctor/medicine as well. Which of course they also want to do, but often can't afford on their own.

Yeah, I kinda think that the Catholic who believes that Catholicism is an intrinsic part of Filipino culture, and the western atheist who believes that religion is bunk aren't going to agree on your 'civilizing mission'. Good luck with that, btw.

You think burning people at the stake for not conforming to the religion of a colonizing nation is protecting native culture

When's the last time that happened in the Philippines?

Which is why you're really the person who believes in the "white man's burden" as it actually was enacted throughout history.

I'm arguing with someone who's never read the literature, never studied the particulars, never taken a look at what the individuals said about themselves or their motivations who objects to the characterization of his motives as being the same. You're just the latest western model that wants to change things to suit what you believe the world should be. The particulars change, the motivations do not.

If you have an online source of his writing I could look into it. It's largely irrelevant though. What I am doing is what I am doing, and I don't need to compare myself to someone else to find out what that is.

I am not suggesting that you change what you are doing, I am simply suggesting that investigating what the man went through would offer helpful insights. It's been done before.

You are the one who is ignorant about that subject matter.

I have quite a bit to say, actually, about this matter. Although I would probably say my experiences are closer to Conrad's.

No, the core of the dispute is you're completely ignorant of what I'm doing here, and yet make claims about it that are (no surprise) factually incorrect.

The statement that there are not enough Filipinos is factually incorrect?

Also, that you seem to have a major disagreement with the motivations of the Catholic church throughout much of it's history.

I have major disagreements with pretty much everything that's been going on in the west for the last while. I think that the West is weaker off because of it. I find myself looking back at the concerns of the folks like Conrad who felt similar issues with society in general. And yes, I have issues with many Catholics and how they choose to go about things.

The Church as a whole? I can't say that I do. I like Pope Francis. I think he's been great for the Church. I will miss Pope Benedict, he was my favourite.

I find it amusing how you express deep dissatisfaction with such actions while simultaneously deifying the church and it's actions throughout history.

There's a distinction between perfection in doctrine and perfection in action. The theology is rather fascinating. Duns Scotus I believe, but I'd have to go check into it. Helpful for anyone studying the Church and Church history to any degree.

I teach it all, the good and the bad.