CDZ If MLK was a womanizer does it matter?

[JoeB131]

They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.

Was Seattle occupied by Soviet Troops? (Then again, why would they want it?)

 

[Polishprince]

They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.

Was Seattle occupied by Soviet Troops? (Then again, why would they want it?)

Actually, the people of Seattle thought it was a great idea due to their support of Lenin's Liberal ideals

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the people of Seattle thought it was a great idea due to their support of Lenin's Liberal ideals

Okay, so they didn't suffer a soviet occupation then, thanks for replying.

As opposed to Eastern Europe, which did and tore all his statues down.

 

[beautress]

The liberals are busy destroying this country and everyone lets them.

A bullet in Memphis ended that debate ! He may have been a womanizer, But womanizing was an accepted part of Black Culture in the 60's. He probably banged some white girls too ! A statue for another dead guy big deal!

Names and dates, please, or this is a wild speculation.

 

[22lcidw]

They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.

Was Seattle occupied by Soviet Troops? (Then again, why would they want it?)

Its occupied by Boeing! bwhaaaa! They have a statue of Stalin!

 

[SSDD]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." MLK

If he was a womanizer, then clearly he had some character issues. He himself dreamed of, and asked to be judged by the content of his character.

again, the problem with the "womanizer" thing is that all the women he slept with knew he was married and slept with him anyway, because it was the 1960's and that's what people did.

If everyone involved is a consenting adult, I might not approve, but it's really not my business....

He made some promises to his wife when he got married...he broke them. You don't think breaking solem promises is a character issue?

 

[JoeB131]

He made some promises to his wife when he got married...he broke them. You don't think breaking solem promises is a character issue?

Nope. And funny you guys don't hold Trump to the same standard.

I wonder about this weird thing right wingers have where lying us into a war is acceptable, but lying about an affair (we're only human) is the worst thing ever.

 

[SSDD]

[
SSD, the libbies have zero standards. They cannot possibly bring themselves to terms with the real world. They like their little false narrative lives and think everyone else should, too. Oh, and JoeB131 is one of the most extreme of them all and is proud of it. Trying to reason with him is like stepping on a snare that leaves its victim upside down, hanging from a tree with a bearclaw clamp on one foot that leaves you dangling from the high tree you didn't notice before, and by one foot, too. You'll learn. Which reminds me, it's time to put JoeB back on my ignore list. <giggle>

Of course. When people apologize for that sort of thing, I suppose they don't realize that they are exposing their very own character shortcomings which renders practically everything they say questionable.

If I were to try and reason with someone who suffers from serious character flaws, I would deserve to become ensnared in their twisted view of the world with them. It simply is not possible to reason with someone who leans towards sociopathy...they have no common ground upon which to establish a rational dialog with people who possess a moral sense.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. And funny you guys don't hold Trump to the same standard.

I see why you might reject the notion of being judged on the content of one's character...You wouldn't fare well under such a system would you? Were you born with the obvious character flaws, or were they instilled within you by your upbringing...always an interesting question.

Of course it is rhetorical at best, since you couldn't have an honest discussion on the topic...I would wager that to you, honesty is as quaint, and outdated as fidelity, or any other behavior based on a moral code..

And by the way....Trump is a dirt ball..but then, he never presented himself as anything else. He offered himself up as a dirt ball who knew how to create jobs, reduce the tax burden on those in this nation who produce, and one who would put the interests of his own nation ahead of the interests of any other nation...that is what he got hired for...not his morals. King on the other hand actually tacked the title of reverend to his name...identifying yourself as such carries with it certain moral obligations which may, or may not have ever registered in your mind depending on whether you were born leaning towards sociopathy or whether it is the product of your upbringing.

And if you knew history, you would know that democrats lied their way into their fair share of wars as well...selective condemnation...typical anti social trait.

 

[JoeB131]

I see why you might reject the notion of being judged on the content of one's character...You wouldn't fare well under such a system would you? Were you born with the obvious character flaws, or were they instilled within you by your upbringing...always an interesting question.

Ummmm...okay, is this going to be one of those discussions were you twist logic on it's head and claim that 95% of Climate scientists are all lying?

Funny thing, I was brought up by religious fanatics... which is why I reject such false moralizing. I don't know what kind of relationship Dr. King and his wife had. Most of these stories of womanizing came out long after he was dead. I also realize, at the end of the day, I don't really care.

Of course it is rhetorical at best, since you couldn't have an honest discussion on the topic...I would wager that to you, honesty is as quaint, and outdated as fidelity, or any other behavior based on a moral code..

My moral code is based on logic, reason and a lack religious nonsense. The problem is, at some point, we conflated morality with religion.

And by the way....Trump is a dirt ball..but then, he never presented himself as anything else. He offered himself up as a dirt ball who knew how to create jobs, reduce the tax burden on those in this nation who produce, and one who would put the interests of his own nation ahead of the interests of any other nation...that is what he got hired for...not his morals.

Well, no, he didn't get hired.. because the PEOPLE SAID NO! Loudly. By three million votes. But the amusing thing is that as long as he promises to oppress women and minorities and gays, the right has no problem with him, which is why I take their claims of "morality" with a grain of salt.

King on the other hand actually tacked the title of reverend to his name...identifying yourself as such carries with it certain moral obligations which may, or may not have ever registered in your mind depending on whether you were born leaning towards sociopathy or whether it is the product of your upbringing.

Funny, I rarely heard him referred to as "Reverend" King. I've usually heard him referred to as "Doctor" King. Of course, he had these titles because he was an ordained minister and a Doctor of Theology. .

None of which has anything to do with whether or not he had relationships outside of his marriage.

And if you knew history, you would know that democrats lied their way into their fair share of wars as well...selective condemnation...typical anti social trait.

No, not really. Let's look at this.

World War I- Um, no, the Germans really were sinking our ships.
World War II- Um, no, the Japanese really did bomb Pearl Harbor.
Korea- Um, no, the North Koreans really did cross the DMZ.

So none of these involved a "lie" by Democrats.

You MIGHT be able to stretch the Gulf of Tonkin incident into a "lie", I guess, but we were already knee deep in Vietnam long before LBJ got there...

 

[Polishprince]

I see why you might reject the notion of being judged on the content of one's character...You wouldn't fare well under such a system would you? Were you born with the obvious character flaws, or were they instilled within you by your upbringing...always an interesting question.

Ummmm...okay, is this going to be one of those discussions were you twist logic on it's head and claim that 95% of Climate scientists are all lying?

Funny thing, I was brought up by religious fanatics... which is why I reject such false moralizing. I don't know what kind of relationship Dr. King and his wife had. Most of these stories of womanizing came out long after he was dead. I also realize, at the end of the day, I don't really care.

Of course it is rhetorical at best, since you couldn't have an honest discussion on the topic...I would wager that to you, honesty is as quaint, and outdated as fidelity, or any other behavior based on a moral code..

My moral code is based on logic, reason and a lack religious nonsense. The problem is, at some point, we conflated morality with religion.

And by the way....Trump is a dirt ball..but then, he never presented himself as anything else. He offered himself up as a dirt ball who knew how to create jobs, reduce the tax burden on those in this nation who produce, and one who would put the interests of his own nation ahead of the interests of any other nation...that is what he got hired for...not his morals.

Well, no, he didn't get hired.. because the PEOPLE SAID NO! Loudly. By three million votes. But the amusing thing is that as long as he promises to oppress women and minorities and gays, the right has no problem with him, which is why I take their claims of "morality" with a grain of salt.

King on the other hand actually tacked the title of reverend to his name...identifying yourself as such carries with it certain moral obligations which may, or may not have ever registered in your mind depending on whether you were born leaning towards sociopathy or whether it is the product of your upbringing.

Funny, I rarely heard him referred to as "Reverend" King. I've usually heard him referred to as "Doctor" King. Of course, he had these titles because he was an ordained minister and a Doctor of Theology. .

None of which has anything to do with whether or not he had relationships outside of his marriage.

And if you knew history, you would know that democrats lied their way into their fair share of wars as well...selective condemnation...typical anti social trait.

No, not really. Let's look at this.

World War I- Um, no, the Germans really were sinking our ships.
World War II- Um, no, the Japanese really did bomb Pearl Harbor.
Korea- Um, no, the North Koreans really did cross the DMZ.

So none of these involved a "lie" by Democrats.

You MIGHT be able to stretch the Gulf of Tonkin incident into a "lie", I guess, but we were already knee deep in Vietnam long before LBJ got there...

My main problem with WWII is that it was caused not by FDR's lies, but by his incompetence.

If America had built up its army and navy capabilities in the 1930's, instead of wasting billions on the Roosevelt Raw Deal programs, Hitler would have never tried to pull the shit he did. The German Fuhrer would have said "fuck the Holocaust, America will not tolerate this for a second." Hitler may have easily switched gears and decided to Make Germany Great Again, instead of making it the living hell hole he did.

People think that a good military costs money, and in a sense it does. But in another sense, it is like Preventive Maintenance. If America would have had a top flight Army and Navy, we could have avoided 400,000 + deaths and countless billions in expenses, expenses that keep coming as WWII widows are still being paid to this date.

 

[JoeB131]

My main problem with WWII is that it was caused not by FDR's lies, but by his incompetence.

If America had built up its army and navy capabilities in the 1930's, instead of wasting billions on the Roosevelt Raw Deal programs, Hitler would have never tried to pull the shit he did. The German Fuhrer would have said "fuck the Holocaust, America will not tolerate this for a second." Hitler may have easily switched gears and decided to Make Germany Great Again, instead of making it the living hell hole he did.

There's a whole lot of problems with this reasoning. First and foremost was that until 1938, the US had signed a treaty with the other great powers limiting how many warships they could build.

Second, the New Deal made it possible for the US to quickly arm when they did get into the war.

People think that a good military costs money, and in a sense it does. But in another sense, it is like Preventive Maintenance. If America would have had a top flight Army and Navy, we could have avoided 400,000 + deaths and countless billions in expenses, expenses that keep coming as WWII widows are still being paid to this date.

Um. No. NOthing the US could have done would have prevented WWII.

 

[Polishprince]

Um. No. NOthing the US could have done would have prevented WWII.

Think, Joe, for just a second.

If Hitler saw from his Fuhrer Bunker in Berlin that America was not a country to be trifled with, he would have never even started the Holocaust. Hitler was not stupid, he had to know America wasn't going to put up with that shit.

The idea is deterrence

But in 1939, America's military really wasn't shit. We didn't have the planes, tanks, ammo, or very many men at all under arms.

Hitler saw that, and was not intimidated at all.


BTW, the New Deal was a complete failure, America continued to have high unemployment right until Japan pulled a Pearl Harbor job on America in Hawaii. I guess the New Deal made it easier to get men to sign up once hostilities commenced in WWII, as so many of the men were idle and needed the work.

 

[JoeB131]

Think, Joe, for just a second.

If Hitler saw from his Fuhrer Bunker in Berlin that America was not a country to be trifled with, he would have never even started the Holocaust. Hitler was not stupid, he had to know America wasn't going to put up with that shit.

well, no, not really. Hitler's entire foreign policy up until 1939 was based on the premise that the West was more afraid of the Bolsheviks than they were of him. This is why his aggression was tolerated.

The dumb thing the West did was write the Polish Colonels a blank check over the Danzig Corridor,which rightfully belonged to Germany.

 

[SSDD]

Ummmm...okay, is this going to be one of those discussions were you twist logic on it's head and claim that 95% of Climate scientists are all lying?

Actually, I just asked for observed, measured evidence to support the claims...that is what critical thinkers do...as opposed to political and emotional thinkers such as yourself. If any such evidence were in existence, you could certainly have provided it as it would be unavoidable...it isn't because it doesn't exist... Rather than simply acknowledge the fact, you resort to logical fallacy.

My moral code is based on logic, reason and a lack religious nonsense. The problem is, at some point, we conflated morality with religion.

Sorry guy...logic isn't your thing as evidenced by your response over on the climate change thread...if logic, and reason were your mode of thinking, then rather than toss out a logical fallacy in response to your inability to provide any evidence to support your belief, you would either have acknowledged that you could not provide any such evidence...or, if you were a critical thinker and logical, you would have begun to question exactly why you couldn't provide any such evidence and how you came to accept a hypothesis that can't claim the first piece of observed, measured data which favors itself over natural variability...

No...logic and critical thinking aren't your thing...you are either a political thinker or an emotional thinker..in either case, you reject any set of ethical standards simply because you know instinctively that you could never measure up to them...and rather than admit that, you fall in with a political party which also rejects any sort of ethical standard, and claims that all points of view are equally valid, and whatever a person chooses to do is his on good and no one should question or judge it...

Hypocritical of course because you are quick to judge those who you disagree with...again, a rational, logical thinker would have picked up on that...while it would naturally fly right over the head of a political, emotional thinker.

Well, no, he didn't get hired.. because the PEOPLE SAID NO! Loudly. By three million votes. But the amusing thing is that as long as he promises to oppress women and minorities and gays, the right has no problem with him, which is why I take their claims of "morality" with a grain of salt.

And yet more emotional thinking...A logical, critical thinker would accept the way the electoral votes fell...and not go into a pissing and whining fit because the vote didn't go his way...nor would a logical and rational thinker even begin to make the obviously stupid claim that the president didn't get hired...obviously he did....count the electoral votes...I bet you are one of those ignorant ass wipes who actually says idiotic things like "he isn't my president" aren't you...Logical thinker my ass...

Funny, I rarely heard him referred to as "Reverend" King. I've usually heard him referred to as "Doctor" King. Of course, he had these titles because he was an ordained minister and a Doctor of Theology. .

Deliberate ignorance, or actual ignorance....and does it matter?

I MIGHT be able to stretch the Gulf of Tonkin incident into a "lie", I guess, but we were already knee deep in Vietnam long before LBJ got there...

Who proceeded LBJ? Wasn't he a democrat as well? Yet another failure to think critically.

You may like to think that you are a rational thinker but alas, you are driven by emotion like all political thinkers...Must suck to not even know who you are...look around you at your political peers...you are not alone.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, I just asked for observed, measured evidence to support the claims...that is what critical thinkers do...

yeah, we've heard it before, boring... 95% of scientists who are experts in this stuff are wrong and you are right. Got it. Moving along.

in either case, you reject any set of ethical standards simply because you know instinctively that you could never measure up to them...and rather than admit that, you fall in with a political party which also rejects any sort of ethical standard, and claims that all points of view are equally valid, and whatever a person chooses to do is his on good and no one should question or judge it...

Blah, blah, blah.... when your side lives up to your ethical standards, then you can come back and talk to me about mine. when you support a president who cheated on all three of his wives, and paid off porn stars for their silence, and then throws children into concentration camps, you kind of don't have any business talking to anyone else about ethical standards.

And yet more emotional thinking...A logical, critical thinker would accept the way the electoral votes fell...and not go into a pissing and whining fit because the vote didn't go his way...

The vote totally went my way... then this archaic institution that has been largely ignored for most of our history said, 'Nope, we're giving it to the game show host, even though there's evidence he colluded with the Russians." The people got this right. They saw Trump was unfit for office and voted accordingly. The people were ignored, and now your side keeps trying to claim "this is normal' or "this is okay".

Who proceeded LBJ? Wasn't he a democrat as well? Yet another failure to think critically.

Actually, the guy who got us into Vietnam was Eisenhower... (whom I usually have a lot of respect for). After Truman had the good sense NOT to bail out the French, Ike went full bore into supporting the Quisling Regime in Saigon.

 

[Papageorgio]

MLK had affairs, so did JFK and many others. Odd for a preacher but it was common and doesn’t diminish my view of him.

 

[hjmick]

Does it matter... now? Not so much.


Would it have mattered then? Maybe... But we'll never know.

 

[SSDD]

yeah, we've heard it before, boring... 95% of scientists who are experts in this stuff are wrong and you are right. Got it. Moving along.

Logical fallacy... again...for someone who fancies himself to be a rational, logical thinker, you sure don't do much of it...typical of emotional, political thinkers to not even know how their thought processes work or what motivates them..

Blah, blah, blah.... when your side lives up to your ethical standards, then you can come back and talk to me about mine. when you support a president who cheated on all three of his wives, and paid off porn stars for their silence, and then throws children into concentration camps, you kind of don't have any business talking to anyone else about ethical standards.

And still more logical fallacy.....do you see a pattern developing here? You are an emotional, political thinker who is driven by motivations that you can't even identify..

The vote totally went my way... then this archaic institution that has been largely ignored for most of our history said, 'Nope, we're giving it to the game show host, even though there's evidence he colluded with the Russians." The people got this right. They saw Trump was unfit for office and voted accordingly. The people were ignored, and now your side keeps trying to claim "this is normal' or "this is okay".

And still more flawed thinking...whining because our system of government doesn't operate on the principle of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner...at this point, you are becoming laughable...all this time and you still have't voiced a single logical rational thought... thus far, it amounts to little more than whining because you didn't get your way.

Actually, the guy who got us into Vietnam was Eisenhower... (whom I usually have a lot of respect for). After Truman had the good sense NOT to bail out the French, Ike went full bore into supporting the Quisling Regime in Saigon.

And lets cap it off with yet more flawed thinking...have you ever looked at a list of wars and compared it to the presidents who got us involved?

WW1 - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat. WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt, D. Korea - Harry Truman-D. And you obviously never really spent much time actually looking at the Vietnam war...Eisenhower refused to commit troops to the Franco Vietnamese war.. He went so far as to authorize money to aid the french, but never sent any Americans...And when the french surrendered, He lent support to Ngo Dinh Diem to consolidate power in Saigon...he didn't send troops or advisors...JFK got us into vietnam by sending more than 10,000 "advisors" to vietnam and Johnson got the ball rolling with troops and the draft...

Typical emotional, political thinker...only looking as far as you think you need in order to make a point with no interest whatsoever in actually examining your position for its rationality. You are a waste of time...anyone who claims to be a rational, logical thinker who can be exposed as an emotional, political thinker this easily really needs to spend some time in self examination rather than trying to score points on a message board.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, I just asked for observed, measured evidence to support the claims...

You've gotten those in spades. The problem isn't the quality of the evidence of dying coral reefs and melting icecaps, which even non-scientists can notice. The problem for guys on your side is that fixing it would require massive government regulation and intervention, which will come, the question is, will it come in time to solve the problem.

Blah, blah, blah.... when your side lives up to your ethical standards, then you can come back and talk to me about mine.

We have an ethical standard. It's called, "your private life isn't anyone else's business". You guys want to force women to have unwanted babies while your Fuhrer pays off porn stars.

And still more logical fallacy.....do you see a pattern developing here? You are an emotional, political thinker who is driven by motivations that you can't even identify..

Uh, buddy, if you see kids being thrown into concentration camps, and you aren't having an emotional reaction to it, that is far more worrisome.

WW1 - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat. WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt, D. Korea - Harry Truman-D.

Um, yeah, these were all wars against evil regimes that started up with us... What is your point? Our foreign policy should be 'We don't start wars, we finish them!" The World Wars had been going on for years before the Central Powers/Axis decided attacking us was a good game plan. Korea was a case were North Korea and China attacked South Korea and our troops there.

And you obviously never really spent much time actually looking at the Vietnam war...Eisenhower refused to commit troops to the Franco Vietnamese war.. He went so far as to authorize money to aid the french, but never sent any Americans...And when the french surrendered, He lent support to Ngo Dinh Diem to consolidate power in Saigon...

But that was the point. Ike committed us to supporting Diem... so everything that followed was kind of his fault. Both parties were locked into this "Who Lost Vietnam" mode, and even though Nixon was the guy who finally sold Saigon out, the Democrats STILL got the blame for it.

The problem here is that you have found ways to rationalize your own selfish behaviors as "logic".