Well, there is a difference, because obviously they went to great lengths to force the perception that this was lone act of defiance for a reason.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it that way. The sitins at Woolworth's in my city of Greensboro were planned as well, but that doesn't seem to detract from their significance in the movement.lowing wrote:
Now that is disappointing news. Lets face it, the act is less potent because it was "staged" than it is as a random act of defiance by a brave woman that has had enough and took a stand spontaneously.Turquoise wrote:
Well, actually, they've discovered that Parks was approached by activists before she walked onto that bus. She was somewhat of an activist herself, so when she took a stand, it was a planned incident.
Granted, I think Parks shows us that planning a movement is very effective. You're much more likely to get something accomplished through planning an incident than to just rely on random chance.
Well, the whole concept of all men are created equal seems pretty shallow when considering Jefferson first penned it without moving to abolish slavery or even allow non-landowning men to vote in the early days of our country. Does that mean the gesture was less "potent" as a result?lowing wrote:
Well, there is a difference, because obviously they went to great lengths to force the perception that this was lone act of defiance for a reason.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it that way. The sitins at Woolworth's in my city of Greensboro were planned as well, but that doesn't seem to detract from their significance in the movement.lowing wrote:
Now that is disappointing news. Lets face it, the act is less potent because it was "staged" than it is as a random act of defiance by a brave woman that has had enough and took a stand spontaneously.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate honesty and consistency of character, but I think you're being a bit nitpicky with the actions leading up to Civil Rights. The deceit of Parks pales in comparison to the oppression of Jim Crow. I would say the same of MLK's failings as compared to the racists he stood up against.
Again I have no problem with MLK being human with human frailties. I do have a problem with anyone that promotes a self image that he is pure, and worse yet, preaches morality and integrity when they have skeletons the size of MLK's in their closet. It does detract from the message and turns him into a joke. That is not to say the civil rights movement was a joke however.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the whole concept of all men are created equal seems pretty shallow when considering Jefferson first penned it without moving to abolish slavery or even allow non-landowning men to vote in the early days of our country. Does that mean the gesture was less "potent" as a result?lowing wrote:
Well, there is a difference, because obviously they went to great lengths to force the perception that this was lone act of defiance for a reason.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it that way. The sitins at Woolworth's in my city of Greensboro were planned as well, but that doesn't seem to detract from their significance in the movement.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate honesty and consistency of character, but I think you're being a bit nitpicky with the actions leading up to Civil Rights. The deceit of Parks pales in comparison to the oppression of Jim Crow. I would say the same of MLK's failings as compared to the racists he stood up against.
and yes, in todays social attitudes, Jeffersons words seem to be quite a joke as well.
Fair enough.lowing wrote:
Again I have no problem with MLK being human with human frailties. I do have a problem with anyone that promotes a self image that he is pure, and worse yet, preaches morality and integrity when they have skeletons the size of MLK's in their closet. It does detract from the message and turns him into a joke. That is not to say the civil rights movement was a joke however.
I would say the flaw in that assessment is applying today's standards to a man that died almost 200 years ago.lowing wrote:
and yes, in todays social attitudes, Jeffersons words seem to be quite a joke as well.
I do put it in context with the time period he lived. Still, it is somewhat ridiculous to read those words, and know it was never meant to include women, blacks or the poor non-landowners.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough.lowing wrote:
Again I have no problem with MLK being human with human frailties. I do have a problem with anyone that promotes a self image that he is pure, and worse yet, preaches morality and integrity when they have skeletons the size of MLK's in their closet. It does detract from the message and turns him into a joke. That is not to say the civil rights movement was a joke however.I would say the flaw in that assessment is applying today's standards to a man that died almost 200 years ago.lowing wrote:
and yes, in todays social attitudes, Jeffersons words seem to be quite a joke as well.
I am still dismayed that Rosa Parks defiance was a staged act.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-21 20:26:45)
True, I can agree with that.
So why bring it up?lowing wrote:
I did not say the civil rights movement was wrong. Indeed, it has nothing to do with the fact of what MLK really was.
So again, its irrelevant.Or is your argument that a person that supports equality, can not be wrong in other issues. It just so happens that other issue is integrity, honestly, morality, etc... all of which he preached and did not practice. That is the issue, not whether or not civil rights was right or wrong.
Fuck Israel
We agree then. Now all we gotta do is get Dilbert to explain his double standard opinions regarding public figures and their privacy and why race seems to be a deciding factor in that issue.Turquoise wrote:
True, I can agree with that.
it looks like that meal loaf in jail that they show on msnbc's lock up
Tu Stultus Es
Its simple,
If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
Fuck Israel
erm whateleven bravo wrote:
it looks like that meal loaf in jail that they show on msnbc's lock up
wrong thread. since you quoted it no sense in deleting
Tu Stultus Es
you loaf
You support a guy eaves dropping on the privacy of the Palins that has nothing to do with politics or public issues. Lets also not forget what MLK did regarding his PHD is not of a private nature. and his cheating goes directly toward hi character. Now, explain the double standard.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its simple,
If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
Fuck Israel
you are not addressing the fact that you disapprove of calling out the "privacy" of MLK that has a direct impact on his image, while supporting the exact same thing on the Palins. Considering the dirt that is sought on the Plains is truly of a private nature, while MLK as a liar a thief and a cheat is of public record.Dilbert_X wrote:
If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
You seem to think your double standards have not been exposed. They have, now is the time to explain them, and so far you have not.
Never said I object to calling out anyones privacy, just that using it when its irrelevant to the argument achieves nothing.
And how do you know Palin isn't a liar, thief and cheat?
Until her privacy is invaded as MLKs was you won't. Seems like an argument FOR invading her privacy.
And how do you know Palin isn't a liar, thief and cheat?
Until her privacy is invaded as MLKs was you won't. Seems like an argument FOR invading her privacy.
Fuck Israel
You object to calling out the reputation of MLK usling pulic records citing privacy issues. It has already been established that his image has nothing to with the civil rights movement. His image has everything to do with well, his projected image. That image is the issue, not the civil rights movement.Dilbert_X wrote:
Never said I object to calling out anyones privacy, just that using it when its irrelevant to the argument achieves nothing.
And how do you know Palin isn't a liar, thief and cheat?
Until her privacy is invaded as MLKs was you won't. Seems like an argument FOR invading her privacy.
You clearly support invading the privacy of the Palins.
Now once again I ask you to explain your double standard opinions regarding it.
It also negates the point of invading peoples privacy.Never said I object to calling out anyones privacy, just that using it when its irrelevant to the argument achieves nothing.
In the case of MLK his image is irrelevant, what he said is what is important.
I'll paste it again.
If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-21 21:34:22)
Fuck Israel
Oh well, I won't ask again.Dilbert_X wrote:
It also negates the point of invading peoples privacy.Never said I object to calling out anyones privacy, just that using it when its irrelevant to the argument achieves nothing.
In the case of MLK his image is irrelevant, what he said is what is important.
I'll paste it again.If someone is preaching honesty, morality, probity etc and can be called out on it thats one thing.
If they are preaching equality and racial harmony and you call them out on their PhD thesis and extra-marital affairs then you're just making yourself look petty and hate-filled.
You dismiss the FACTS surrounding the false image of MLK and the FACT that he should have his PHD revoked, and condemn this exposure as irrelevant to the man, when clearly they are not. You Cite privacy for public figures as the reason.
Then you support the invasion of privacy of the Palins, when the hope is to find anything private they can make public for money.
Yo ureally need to explain the double standard and drop the tap dancing routine.
OK
Was MLK an elected official?
Was he receiving your tax dollars?
Are you bound by his statements and opinions?
I can see where you're headed with this.
Was MLK an elected official?
Was he receiving your tax dollars?
Are you bound by his statements and opinions?
You support the invasion of privacy of MLK - a private citizen, and object when it comes to Palin - a public official.lowing wrote:
Then you support the invasion of privacy of the Palins, when the hope is to find anything private they can make public for money.
I can see where you're headed with this.
No double standards, do what you will with peoples private lives - but bring them out in public for spite as opposed to use in a valid argument and you demonstrate you are the one with a problem.Yo ureally need to explain the double standard and drop the tap dancing routine.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-21 21:58:32)
Fuck Israel
For spite? MLK was a public figure, he was a preacher and preached against the very things he did. He used his notoriety to push his agendas. Public figure does not mean elected official. Here is a news flash, Sarah Palin is not an elected official either. She is no longer governor of Alaska and has not been elected to shit. You even called her a public figure, not an elected offical. Public figures are in bounds according to you. So if MLK was a public figure again why the double standard?Dilbert_X wrote:
OK
Was MLK an elected official?
Was he receiving your tax dollars?
Are you bound by his statements and opinions?You support the invasion of privacy of MLK - a private citizen, and object when it comes to Palin - a public official.lowing wrote:
Then you support the invasion of privacy of the Palins, when the hope is to find anything private they can make public for money.
I can see where you're headed with this.No double standards, do what you will with peoples private lives - but bring them out in public for spite as opposed to use in a valid argument and you demonstrate you are the one with a problem.Yo ureally need to explain the double standard and drop the tap dancing routine.
MLK's morality against his public outcries is valid.
trying to cash in on an argument between Sarah Palin and her husband or daughter is not valid..
You are tap dancing and I do not believe you even buy your own bullshit. You simply have been busted and you can not rationally explain your way out of it. Just admit it, you have expressed a double standard, what is good for people you do not like is NOT good for people you like. You have posted it.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-22 04:49:58)
MLK is no longer even alive, so what relevance does what he did in his private life have to black equality here and now?
Fuck Israel
It has nothing to do with black equality. It has everything to do with his character, his morality, and his integrity, in the face of his self rightousness and his preaching.Dilbert_X wrote:
MLK is no longer even alive, so what relevance does what he did in his private life have to black equality here and now?
Now lets see, you first said you would not answer because I was "blind", then you say it was because it was irrlevant to black equality, and issue that has never been raised by the way. From there you said he was not an elected official, when I quoted you as saying Sarah Palin should not be a public figure if she did not want her privacy violated, I doubt you can claim MLK was not a public figure. Now the difference is he is no longer alive an argument irrelevant to the issue. All of your arguments have been shown to be wrong or inconsistant with previous posts you have made
Stop tap dancing, admit you have been caught in a double standard, and explain to us why race plays a factor in your opinions regsarding this issue.
So then... lowing, I guess you support the invasion of Palin's privacy on the same grounds as MLK then. Surely you're not going to have the same double standards you accuse everyone else of having
I think with Palin, she was a governor and she also was at the frontline for Vice President and continues to be very politically active. There's more of a case for her than with MLK, especially in terms of relavence to their causes
I think with Palin, she was a governor and she also was at the frontline for Vice President and continues to be very politically active. There's more of a case for her than with MLK, especially in terms of relavence to their causes