Christianity

[seeds]

Does not everyone "take the moral high ground".

All political stances are characterised and defined by taking of the moral high ground.

"You distort everything you are examining. " is ad hominem generalisation.

As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.

(You have gone all show -offy again. Semilla indeed! )

Sr Semilla’s post is an emoted garble. I have asked him to pare down to one topic or issue and if he does so I will make an effort to respond.

Oh pish-posh, Alexis.

Are you a toddler who needs mommy to cut his meat up into bite-size morsels for him?

Try not to be such a little weenie about this and just soldier your way through my earlier post and pick something from the "emoted garble" that you feel comfortable addressing and stop expecting me to feed you an individual point from that post that, in all fairness, shouldn't be addressed out of context of the overall post itself.

Afterall, wasn't it you who, just a few days ago, insisted that this...

"...I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle..."

...was "contextual," implying that it needed to be evaluated in some greater context?

Well, I suggest that this entire (years-long) conversation is contextual, and that each new proposal and rebuttal needs to be evaluated "within the context" of the hundreds of previous proposals and rebuttals that preceded them, not only in this particular thread, but elsewhere on this forum.

Furthermore, you have asked us to "go to the original source" of these white nationalist ideas as opposed to the biased, secondhand sources.

Well, I did that. I listened to the speech that Torba gave to the AFPAC crowd (the source of the quote I provided), so you can cut the crap about me only relying on second-hand information.

“You people” set up conversational situations where two camps go at each other...

Yes, it's called "debate," where the "you people" (good grief, I feel like I'm talking to Age now) present opposing arguments to one another.

“You” have fixed views and your purpose is not to be moved. You must see this.

Oh my poor dear Apollyon, your lack of self-awareness can be stunning at times.

I examine events and conflicts from a position of greater distance.

Yes, and we've discussed this before in that what you perceive as being a "greater distance" (greater height) is nothing more than a tiny outcrop (misty ledge) on a mountain that extends so far above you that it disappears into the clouds.

I am not necessarily on one side or the other.

The guy that stated the following,...

"...It is true that in the realm of ideas I do side with Renaud Camus..."

...and this...

"...I entertain the sort of ideas [Jonathan] Bowden talks about..."

...and this...

"...I find I agree with him [Andrew Torba] on most points..."

...offers a convincing counter to your dubious claim of neutrality.

Sr Semillas is entirely involved with his long-established preaching and his Vision of how things should be.

Guilty as charged. It's called being "steadfast and consistent" in one's beliefs.

Every post is the same: extremely long, brow-beating, intensely moralizing.

Only for those like you who suggest things such as this,...

"...I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle..."

...while at the same time insisting that it comports with Catholic Social Doctrine.

Furthermore, enough with more of your hypocrisy already, for you have been known to pump out some extremely long posts yourself. I could link you to some, but it would just make this post longer.

The entire post in question drips with self-righteous, high-handed moralization and is slathered in emoted ideas. Such a way of seeing and presenting views and values is distorting by definition. And to point it out is not ad hominem.

So then, according to our resident white nationalist/Trump supporter, it is...

"...self-righteous, high-handed moralization..."

...to not only suggest that all human souls are absolutely equal in form and eternal purpose,...

...but that we also need to find a way to work together for the good and prosperity of all humans on Earth.

Alexis, as a friend and admirer of your writing style and general hutzpah, I'm begging you to please put down the shovel before the sides of the hole you are digging yourself into, collapse and bury you.

As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.

Horseshit. Seeds is setting himself up as a Grand Ideological Opponent all on his own. And he wants me to play along with the game as he establishes it.

No, Alexis, I am just trying to get you to realize that the aforementioned "outcrop" you are standing on,...

(you know, the one that you believe is allowing you to see things from a higher perspective)

...epitomizes what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is all about, in that there exists even higher perspectives above yours.

And if you doubt that, then you are simply confirming the diagnosis.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, another long post. Deal with it.)
_______

[Gary Childress]

I didn't. And I don't follow Murray. But if he said that, he's agreeing with the DEI people, and his explanation is racist the way theirs is.

But please, do answer my question. How does the kid from a well-to-do Chicago suburb merit DEI privileges, and the impoverished child of an Asian merits being discriminated against? I'm really interested to know how DEI advocates explain that one without agreeing with Murray.

Answer my question first.

I asked first. When you answer, I'll answer.

Fair enough. Since Asians are scoring well on tests to get into higher tier schools and blacks lag as a group, Asians don't seem to require assistance. Besides, their ancestors weren't American slaves and didn't undergo the same trauma as blacks did.

Don't you think blacks are owed something as recompense? Don't you think they would be scoring higher on IQ tests and such if they had the same opportunities as whites? Or should we just leave things as they are with black minorities not scoring as high on average as Asians or even whites? Are Asians underrepresented in American colleges? Are whites underrepresented in American colleges? Or should we lower the entrance requirements for getting into the Harvards and Yales and Princetons? What should we do? Is "Oh well, must suck to be you! See ya!" the right response?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The problem with those who are stuck in a position that does not allow any recognition of race-difference is that it is essentially built on false-assertions.

It is certainly false that one generation's trauma gets magically transferred down the line indefinitely. I'll buy one generation, maybe two by way of indirect conditions; but by three generations, everybody's out of excuses. If there have been three generations of equal opportunity, then any talk of inferiority is simply racist.

But ‘inferiority’ is not really the issue, though certainly some point to ‘racial inferiority’ as a genuine thing.

I think it more has to do with personal and cultural will. And as I tried to point out Blacks, when discovering their roots, also discover many reasons to feel opposed to those processes that beset them in later history. “Who am I in all this?”

It is a question of dignity of choice vs a sense of being forced into processes non-voluntarily. I could cite many examples from the works of Black writers that support a mood of not wishing to go along with processes not original to them. (Amiri Baraka, Malcolm X, Huey Newton and others).

[Alexis Jacobi]

...offers a convincing counter to your dubious claim of neutrality.

You are free to doubt my assertion if you wish. I mean by neutrality that I hold myself aloof from decisive postures. I am not an activist as some ideologues are. I see pros and cons in all positions. I do not myself have a dog in the fight. I am aware that a great deal of the seed-laying of 10+ years ago is now bearing fruit — conflicted fruit certainly. But as I say reaction is problematic.

You would do well to take a calming pill, Sr Semillas, and try to realize that my positions have more balance and nuance than you raging judgments can allow …

So then, according to our resident white nationalist/Trump supporter, it is...

This is a false assertion. If I have any position at all it is that my wish is that attacks on ‘whiteness’ cease. These have a loooonng history and they are very destructive.

And I support Trump insofar as he proposed a platform more amenable to conservative values generally. I saw him, as Bannon put it, as an “armor piercing shell”.

However I am skeptical of all politics these days. Though I can say I am happy (is that the right word?) that a more pointed attack has now been outlined against Antifa-like groups. I want to see the positions of a reactionary Right solidify into tangible attainments, if this is possible.

Again, my positions and ideas are far more nuanced than your prejudices will allow.

[Immanuel Can]

Answer my question first.

I asked first. When you answer, I'll answer.

Fair enough. Since Asians are scoring well on tests to get into higher tier schools and blacks lag as a group,

Well, you seem to believe Murray's claims. I don't. I see no reason to suppose they're true at all.

Asians don't seem to require assistance.

You still have to prove that blacks do. But why do Asians deserve to be discriminated against, when their social conditions have often been immeasurably worse than the kid from Chicago's rich suburbs ever knew?

Don't you think blacks are owed something as recompense?

No. Why do you? Do you want to recompense me for the Vikings sacking my ancestral village or the Normans overrunning my native country?

Don't you think they would be scoring higher on IQ tests and such if they had the same opportunities as whites?

I don't know that what Murray says is true. What's your assurance of the integrity of his study? And if he's right, as you say, then are you agreeing with him that the explanation is racial?

If it is, then how will DEI ever help? No lowering of standards would ever change an innate genetic and racial deficiency. So how do you expect lower standards to serve the interests of society, or even the interests of the community involved?

And that's also my answer to your question. I have no reason to believe Murray. Why do you?

[Gary Childress]

I asked first. When you answer, I'll answer.

Fair enough. Since Asians are scoring well on tests to get into higher tier schools and blacks lag as a group,

Well, you seem to believe Murray's claims. I don't. I see no reason to suppose they're true at all.

Asians don't seem to require assistance.

You still have to prove that blacks do. But why do Asians deserve to be discriminated against, when their social conditions have often been immeasurably worse than the kid from Chicago's rich suburbs ever knew?

Don't you think blacks are owed something as recompense?

No. Why do you? Do you want to recompense me for the Vikings sacking my ancestral village or the Normans overrunning my native country?

Don't you think they would be scoring higher on IQ tests and such if they had the same opportunities as whites?

I don't know that what Murray says is true. What's your assurance of the integrity of his study? And if he's right, as you say, then are you agreeing with him that the explanation is racial?

If it is, then how will DEI ever help? No lowering of standards would ever change an innate genetic and racial deficiency. So how do you expect lower standards to serve the interests of society, or even the interests of the community involved?

And that's also my answer to your question. I have no reason to believe Murray. Why do you?

Well, sadly enough, the Internet seems to officially recognize something along the lines of Murray's findings.

Research over decades consistently shows a difference in average IQ test scores between Black and White populations, but the scientific consensus is that this gap is not due to genetic differences. Instead, it is attributed to environmental factors such as persistent socioeconomic inequalities, systemic racism, and biases within the tests themselves. The interpretation of these scores has a long and controversial history, including misuse by eugenics movements

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ther ... s-wiz-serp

So now, answer my question:

How do you explain a fact that Charles Murray jumped on to point out? That there's a disparity in IQ scores? Is it nature or nurture? Is it innate qualities or environment that produce it? Or if it's not one of those two, then what explains it?

[ThinkOfOne]

It's ridiculous how much disinformation is being mindlessly parroted on this thread about DEI. An overview of some of the types of disinformation being spread about DEI can be found at the bottom of this post.

This is one of the many issues which have many Christians diametrically opposed.

For all intents and purposes:
Christians who are for DEI take "love your neighbor as you love yourself" seriously. They abide in Jesus' word. As such, they actually follow Jesus.
Christians who are opposed to DEI do not take "love your neighbor as you love yourself" seriously. They do not abide in Jesus' word. As such, they do not actually follow Jesus.


From Google AI:

Significant disinformation is being spread about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, largely as part of a coordinated political campaign by conservative groups. These narratives misrepresent the goals of DEI and often circulate through social media, political rhetoric, and commentary.

Key disinformation themes being spread about DEI include:
Hiring unqualified candidates and "reverse discrimination"
The disinformation: Critics claim that DEI programs force companies and universities to lower hiring standards to meet quotas for unqualified or less qualified non-white or female candidates. The acronym is sometimes sarcastically rephrased as "Didn't Earn It". Prominent individuals have been targeted with this claim; for instance, Republican lawmakers labeled Vice President Kamala Harris a "DEI hire," suggesting her qualifications were not the reason for her selection.
The reality: DEI aims to expand talent pools and remove bias from the selection process, not to hire less-qualified candidates. It provides a fair chance for historically marginalized groups who may face additional barriers, which ultimately leads to a deeper and more qualified pool of applicants. Research has consistently shown that diverse organizations are more innovative and profitable.

Promoting division and political ideology
The disinformation: Opponents argue that DEI is a "woke," leftist ideology that promotes division by categorizing people as "oppressor" and "oppressed". They accuse DEI of stifling free speech, instilling guilt in certain groups, and forcing political bias onto employees. The language and tactics used are intentionally polarizing to provoke backlash.
The reality: Proponents assert that DEI is about addressing existing systemic inequities and fostering an inclusive environment where everyone feels respected and belongs. The goal is to bridge existing gaps and build understanding, not to create new divisions. Some critics may intentionally blur the lines between DEI and other, unrelated concepts like Critical Race Theory (CRT) to further mislead the public.

Being a wasteful and unnecessary endeavor
The disinformation: Misinformation frames DEI as a budget-draining, "feel-good" exercise that lacks real impact, and is ultimately just a passing trend.
The reality: Decades of research have shown DEI to have tangible benefits, including higher revenue, greater innovation, and better employee retention. When implemented poorly, DEI can certainly be ineffective, but this is a result of flawed execution, not the concept itself. For many workers, particularly those in Gen Z, a company's commitment to DEI is a significant factor in their decision to apply.

Targeting specific companies and institutions
The disinformation: Misinformation campaigns have specifically targeted institutions that are implementing DEI initiatives. Examples include false accusations against Harley-Davidson for using funds on specific procedures for children, an attack launched on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) to push for boycotts.
The reality: These targeted attacks are often rooted in broader political campaigns intended to damage the public image and financial health of organizations that embrace DEI principles.

A coordinated effort
This disinformation is not occurring randomly but is part of a larger, organized effort. In 2024, the Movement Advancement Project published a report titled Dismantling DEI: A Coordinated Attack on American Values, which tracks hundreds of state-level bills introduced to attack DEI in government, education, and the private sector. This campaign often exploits misunderstandings about DEI and uses emotionally charged language to drive fear and resentment.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. Since Asians are scoring well on tests to get into higher tier schools and blacks lag as a group,

Well, you seem to believe Murray's claims. I don't. I see no reason to suppose they're true at all.

Asians don't seem to require assistance.

You still have to prove that blacks do. But why do Asians deserve to be discriminated against, when their social conditions have often been immeasurably worse than the kid from Chicago's rich suburbs ever knew?

Don't you think blacks are owed something as recompense?

No. Why do you? Do you want to recompense me for the Vikings sacking my ancestral village or the Normans overrunning my native country?

Don't you think they would be scoring higher on IQ tests and such if they had the same opportunities as whites?

I don't know that what Murray says is true. What's your assurance of the integrity of his study? And if he's right, as you say, then are you agreeing with him that the explanation is racial?

If it is, then how will DEI ever help? No lowering of standards would ever change an innate genetic and racial deficiency. So how do you expect lower standards to serve the interests of society, or even the interests of the community involved?

And that's also my answer to your question. I have no reason to believe Murray. Why do you?

Well, sadly enough, the Internet seems to officially recognize something along the lines of Murray's findings.

So you believe they’re true? You believe that black people have lower IQ, on average?

And which “socioeconomic” factors explain why the young black man from the affluent suburbs of Chicago still needs DEI, and the boat refugee from Vietnam and the escapee from Communist tyranny should be discriminated-against? I’m still not clear on your thinking about that.

So now, answer my question:

I did. I don’t believe Murray. If you do, then it’s you who have to explain it. I can’t explain something I think is untrue.

[Gary Childress]

Well, you seem to believe Murray's claims. I don't. I see no reason to suppose they're true at all.


You still have to prove that blacks do. But why do Asians deserve to be discriminated against, when their social conditions have often been immeasurably worse than the kid from Chicago's rich suburbs ever knew?

No. Why do you? Do you want to recompense me for the Vikings sacking my ancestral village or the Normans overrunning my native country?

I don't know that what Murray says is true. What's your assurance of the integrity of his study? And if he's right, as you say, then are you agreeing with him that the explanation is racial?

If it is, then how will DEI ever help? No lowering of standards would ever change an innate genetic and racial deficiency. So how do you expect lower standards to serve the interests of society, or even the interests of the community involved?

And that's also my answer to your question. I have no reason to believe Murray. Why do you?

Well, sadly enough, the Internet seems to officially recognize something along the lines of Murray's findings.

So you believe they’re true? You believe that black people have lower IQ, on average?

And which “socioeconomic” factors explain why the young black man from the affluent suburbs of Chicago still needs DEI, and the boat refugee from Vietnam and the escapee from Communist tyranny should be discriminated-against? I’m still not clear on your thinking about that.

So now, answer my question:

I did. I don’t believe Murray. If you do, then it’s you who have to explain it. I can’t explain something I think is untrue.

Therein lies the problem, IC. If a fact is inconvenient to you, then you just ignore it or disbelieve it. So you don't have to deal with it. It's like global climate change, all concocted by power greedy socialist scientists. You are amazingly ignorant, IC. I suggest asking for your college tuition back.

[ThinkOfOne]

Well, sadly enough, the Internet seems to officially recognize something along the lines of Murray's findings.

So you believe they’re true? You believe that black people have lower IQ, on average?

And which “socioeconomic” factors explain why the young black man from the affluent suburbs of Chicago still needs DEI, and the boat refugee from Vietnam and the escapee from Communist tyranny should be discriminated-against? I’m still not clear on your thinking about that.

So now, answer my question:

I did. I don’t believe Murray. If you do, then it’s you who have to explain it. I can’t explain something I think is untrue.

Therein lies the problem, IC. If a fact is inconvenient to you, then you just ignore it or disbelieve it. So you don't have to deal with it. It's like global climate change, all concocted by power greedy socialist scientists. You are amazingly ignorant, IC. I suggest asking for your college tuition back.

It's not merely ignorance. It's a WILLFUL ignorance. About many things including scripture, Jesus and God to get back to the purpose of this thread.

What's more, It's not just about IC, it's about the conservative mindset in general. Ultimately it's about rejection; rejection of the world's complexity. Whatever is at odds with their simplistic worldview is rejected. No matter how little solid evidence there is for their simplistic views. No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, sadly enough, the Internet seems to officially recognize something along the lines of Murray's findings.

So you believe they’re true? You believe that black people have lower IQ, on average?

And which “socioeconomic” factors explain why the young black man from the affluent suburbs of Chicago still needs DEI, and the boat refugee from Vietnam and the escapee from Communist tyranny should be discriminated-against? I’m still not clear on your thinking about that.

So now, answer my question:

I did. I don’t believe Murray. If you do, then it’s you who have to explain it. I can’t explain something I think is untrue.

Therein lies the problem, IC. If a fact is inconvenient to you, then you just ignore it or disbelieve it.

Oh? So now you insist that Murray's claim is a "fact"? So you believe that blacks are lower in IQ? Very interesting conclusion on your part. If so, that would certainly explain the reasons for your thinking on DEI: you think they need it because they are less bright, according to you and Murray.

But I think you should question Murray's cited statistic. I think you should check his evidence for it before you agree with him. Because if it turns out to be right, then it's the death of the prospect of DEI doing any good. It would just suggest you're forcing lower-IQ people into situations that demand a higher IQ.

And if you imagine the cause is social, then again, you're going to have to explain why a black kid from Chicago's affluent suburbs deserves a lower bar than the son of a Korean migrant or the daughter of an Indian shopkeeper... and why both of the latter deserve to be set an even higher bar than is set for whites. But I notice you're not even trying to answer that one.

That's because you know as well as anybody: it doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh? So now you insist that Murray's claim is a "fact"? So you believe that blacks are lower in IQ? Very interesting conclusion on your part. If so, that would certainly explain the reasons for your thinking on DEI: you think they need it because they are less bright, according to you and Murray.

But I think you should question Murray's cited statistic. I think you should check his evidence for it before you agree with him. Because if it turns out to be right, then it's the death of the prospect of DEI doing any good. It would just suggest you're forcing lower-IQ people into situations that demand a higher IQ.

And if you imagine the cause is social, then again, you're going to have to explain why a black kid from Chicago's affluent suburbs deserves a lower bar than the son of a Korean migrant or the daughter of an Indian shopkeeper... and why both of the latter deserve to be set an even higher bar than is set for whites. But I notice you're not even trying to answer that one.

That's because you know as well as anybody: it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Checkmate, Gary. He’s got you by the balls!

If you agree with the premise that the African nations in the New World inevitably perform in a third class behind Asians and Whites, and never seem to be able to rise out of the conditions that have molded them historically, then you hypocritical rat, you overstuffed blubbering White DEI advocate, you must admit that you are a dreaded racist mutherfuquer.

You see, Gary? You see how the ultimate moral manipulation works? When you cannot notice and describe the world as it really is, you have to lie to yourself, and once invested in the lie you remain trapped in the lie, and susceptible to arch-hypocrisy at the hand of an arch moral manipulator.

Oh this is delicious! It is like gooey moral taffy heated up in a DEI microwave.

Are you going to dye your hair bright pink too?

Immanuel, the very ghost of Jesus flutters around your overblown chessboard righteousness! God bless all the Earth’s wee children, all gloriously equal in His sight, and you : Truth Defender hater of Democrats the KKK and all ad hominems that ever infected the muck in the lower spheres, you deserve not one but TWO Holy pretzels!

Well done truly faithful servant & God’s own righteous child! Master pontificator and supreme forward-thinking apologist!

Gary, you have been very very naughty but though busted you CAN redeem yourself. ThinkOfOne has arrived and is primed to lay out the medicinal sacrificial truths encoded scripturally. Boom! The hammer drops. Even Sr Semillas will lend a helping holy hand as you squirm out from under your False Doctrines. I suspect even Promethean will intone in Ebonics some Marxism hymn to push you to a better POV …

Belinda is knitting you Muslim-luvin’ socks!

That's because you know as well as anybody: it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Let’s get down to genuine moral business!

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK it’s decided: I just bought my 1965 Lamborghini 350 GT! I deserve it and I earned it!

[Belinda]

OK it’s decided: I just bought my 1965 Lamborghini 350 GT! I deserve it and I earned it!

I feel happy for you. One of my sons has always loved cars. I am sure your vintage Lamborghini is a beautiful machine. Very elegant!

[Gary Childress]

So you believe they’re true? You believe that black people have lower IQ, on average?

And which “socioeconomic” factors explain why the young black man from the affluent suburbs of Chicago still needs DEI, and the boat refugee from Vietnam and the escapee from Communist tyranny should be discriminated-against? I’m still not clear on your thinking about that.


I did. I don’t believe Murray. If you do, then it’s you who have to explain it. I can’t explain something I think is untrue.

Therein lies the problem, IC. If a fact is inconvenient to you, then you just ignore it or disbelieve it.

Oh? So now you insist that Murray's claim is a "fact"? So you believe that blacks are lower in IQ? Very interesting conclusion on your part. If so, that would certainly explain the reasons for your thinking on DEI: you think they need it because they are less bright, according to you and Murray.

But I think you should question Murray's cited statistic. I think you should check his evidence for it before you agree with him. Because if it turns out to be right, then it's the death of the prospect of DEI doing any good. It would just suggest you're forcing lower-IQ people into situations that demand a higher IQ.

And if you imagine the cause is social, then again, you're going to have to explain why a black kid from Chicago's affluent suburbs deserves a lower bar than the son of a Korean migrant or the daughter of an Indian shopkeeper... and why both of the latter deserve to be set an even higher bar than is set for whites. But I notice you're not even trying to answer that one.

That's because you know as well as anybody: it doesn't make a lick of sense.

You're insane. Welcome to the looney bin, I guess.