Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2021 8:55:46 GMT -6
Originally posted to FaceBook on Sept 8, 2018 - imported here July 24, 2021
A thought experiment:
Some comments I posted today, got me to thinking. How far would modern society take the broad brush painting of bigotry and racism in order to discredit literally ANYTHING a person that has been labeled that actually does? It's a common modern practice to utterly dismiss anyone in any sort of a debate or argument once you can use the racist card. They no longer count towards the discussion if they can be proven to be the slight bit bigoted, so I submit the following thought experiment -
A doctor and his research team have found the cure for cancer. They have patented it and are starting a company to produce and distribute it. They expect profits to be in the millions of dollars but will literally eradicate cancer from the face of the Earth. The doctor got into college and through medical school on local scholarships paid for by fundraising and donations in the local community for a singular organization. Most of the people on his research team and nearly all of the leadership of the new company will be drawn from that organization. That organization is the KKK. The profits for this company would be funneled, at least in part, to advancing the KKK agenda. Would your stances be changed if the company assured the public that none of the profits would be directly applied to KKK business, but that the employees of the company are set as they are?
As an alternative, let's say that the development of the cure and the company was overseas and under the control of a despot of either Middle Eastern or African lineage . . . a real warlord type. So the cure for cancer funds dictatorship, oppression (at least in the country) and an expansion of the ruling person's influence and agenda on an international level. Is that worse or better than the situation above?
Note - After some commenters posted the following:
Commenter #1 - I do not believe in the goals of the KKK, so I would not use their drug to save my own life. However, I would not stop others from doing so.
Commenter #2 - Would you use the drug to save your children's lives?
Commenter #1 - I would leave that decision up to them for the most part, they are all teenagers or older, so I am comfortable with that.
Then I replied with the items below:
This right here is exactly what should be going on across the country at high levels on important issues. In literally 5 responses you can see diversity of stances on issues and willingness to understand where the motivations come from. I know both of you and will say that while your politics are decidedly different, your Momma Bear attitudes are definitely aligned. There is common ground to work from in every pairing or debate if you are willing to listen and if everyone practices tolerance. A lot of the issue in modern times is that there is no tolerance of dissenting opinions. It strikes me as a lack of something. Are your beliefs so flimsy that they cannot be tested by dissenters lest they dissolve? Or differently, are they so entrenched that even expressly proven facts standing against you will not waver your stance? If the first, the educate yourself about why you are that way. If the second, then even if I disagree with you I want to understand why you are that adamant. There is something to be learned there in my opinion.
To state my stance specifically, I have never been burdened with much social consciousness. I'm far more individualistic than that. I read up on the concept of the Sovereignty of the Individual the other day and that is where I stand. This made up example above is a statement of extremes in an attempt to get people to think about how far they would take their personal belief system. I'm proud to say that within 3 people responding, there are widely diverse views. My opinion is that if someone awful built a better mousetrap, then I would likely pay them for it. The mice would be dead and I trust in our American system at large to stop the mousetrap builder before they implement things that are truly, wide-rangingly horrendous. I make this choice for myself and everyone else is free to choose as they like too given all the facts. I do not begrudge anyone of their reasons or outcomes. However, the first one of you that says since the company is racist we are going to outlaw the cure for cancer, you are going to have a fight on your hands. When your beliefs and opinions begin to limit the choices of those that may or may not share those opinions, that is where I draw an issue. As long as those that make choices do not infringe upon the rights and Individual Sovereignty of others, then they should be free to make that choice. I think that makes me Libertarian
A thought experiment:
Some comments I posted today, got me to thinking. How far would modern society take the broad brush painting of bigotry and racism in order to discredit literally ANYTHING a person that has been labeled that actually does? It's a common modern practice to utterly dismiss anyone in any sort of a debate or argument once you can use the racist card. They no longer count towards the discussion if they can be proven to be the slight bit bigoted, so I submit the following thought experiment -
A doctor and his research team have found the cure for cancer. They have patented it and are starting a company to produce and distribute it. They expect profits to be in the millions of dollars but will literally eradicate cancer from the face of the Earth. The doctor got into college and through medical school on local scholarships paid for by fundraising and donations in the local community for a singular organization. Most of the people on his research team and nearly all of the leadership of the new company will be drawn from that organization. That organization is the KKK. The profits for this company would be funneled, at least in part, to advancing the KKK agenda. Would your stances be changed if the company assured the public that none of the profits would be directly applied to KKK business, but that the employees of the company are set as they are?
As an alternative, let's say that the development of the cure and the company was overseas and under the control of a despot of either Middle Eastern or African lineage . . . a real warlord type. So the cure for cancer funds dictatorship, oppression (at least in the country) and an expansion of the ruling person's influence and agenda on an international level. Is that worse or better than the situation above?
Note - After some commenters posted the following:
Commenter #1 - I do not believe in the goals of the KKK, so I would not use their drug to save my own life. However, I would not stop others from doing so.
Commenter #2 - Would you use the drug to save your children's lives?
Commenter #1 - I would leave that decision up to them for the most part, they are all teenagers or older, so I am comfortable with that.
Then I replied with the items below:
This right here is exactly what should be going on across the country at high levels on important issues. In literally 5 responses you can see diversity of stances on issues and willingness to understand where the motivations come from. I know both of you and will say that while your politics are decidedly different, your Momma Bear attitudes are definitely aligned. There is common ground to work from in every pairing or debate if you are willing to listen and if everyone practices tolerance. A lot of the issue in modern times is that there is no tolerance of dissenting opinions. It strikes me as a lack of something. Are your beliefs so flimsy that they cannot be tested by dissenters lest they dissolve? Or differently, are they so entrenched that even expressly proven facts standing against you will not waver your stance? If the first, the educate yourself about why you are that way. If the second, then even if I disagree with you I want to understand why you are that adamant. There is something to be learned there in my opinion.
To state my stance specifically, I have never been burdened with much social consciousness. I'm far more individualistic than that. I read up on the concept of the Sovereignty of the Individual the other day and that is where I stand. This made up example above is a statement of extremes in an attempt to get people to think about how far they would take their personal belief system. I'm proud to say that within 3 people responding, there are widely diverse views. My opinion is that if someone awful built a better mousetrap, then I would likely pay them for it. The mice would be dead and I trust in our American system at large to stop the mousetrap builder before they implement things that are truly, wide-rangingly horrendous. I make this choice for myself and everyone else is free to choose as they like too given all the facts. I do not begrudge anyone of their reasons or outcomes. However, the first one of you that says since the company is racist we are going to outlaw the cure for cancer, you are going to have a fight on your hands. When your beliefs and opinions begin to limit the choices of those that may or may not share those opinions, that is where I draw an issue. As long as those that make choices do not infringe upon the rights and Individual Sovereignty of others, then they should be free to make that choice. I think that makes me Libertarian