Easton Raven

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Easton Raven

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Gender
  1. Noce post sir. Glad to see you put something up beyond the usual political bitterness. This is actuually very interesting...sincere THANKS!!!!
  2. Words take on the power of your sticks and stones especially when they become accepted into the lexicon. Calling bad names is the seed of bad actions. First dehumanize...so as to remove the cognitive dissonance regarding how wrong it is to do wrong to our neighbors. If they are less human, they are somehow less than neighbors, they are "Other" ("Out Group" or not "Us") and thus it becomes easier to trample them under foot. Those are the words....which later become actions because the proscription of unequal treatment or in more extreme cases, violence, has been removed You have become impossible to reason with. You care not to debate, but to impose your sensibilities. Again...read a little about social psychology...you might even find it interesting.
  3. Being called bad names was just the beginning. As those bad names got traction and people began to believe them because it made them feel better about their lot in life....they had a target. Yes...weak people took heart in the name calling and murdered 6 million BECAUSE they had already dehumanized them by calling them bad names initially...ascribing bad traits and evil tendencies. Similarly, African Americans took umbrage to being called ******s by the frightened, uneducated white bigots who were afraid that African Americans would somehow hurt them if they gained full rights. The constant use of the N word among other filfth created the mental space for them to justify terrorism in the name of white supremacy. Read up a bit on social psychology Kudzu....you might learn how words really DO make a difference.
  4. I think you fail to see the damage that may be done with words. How many jews did Hitler kill....I mean....how many did he physically murder with his own hands? It was Hitler's words that killed 6 million. He used words to dehumanize a race and legitimize first their ostracization and later their murder. Your example, while certainly not as extreme...is still wrong. Words matter and they can be devastating and even deadly. Callig Mexicans wetbacks and Gays homos or f-gs...on the surface is innocuous....but that is an insidious way of perpetuating a wrong. And YOU KNOW IT.
  5. "A strong human would let that crap slide off their back like a duck in water." Strong or weak....no one should HAVE to let it slide off their back. When those kinds of words are used to enrage, or to dehumanize and thus lend false legitimacy to the speaker's superiority it is WRONG. It creates an environment that is hostile and that ripples through the target's life experiences. To say that "Oh...they should just get over it"... gives a wrong thing legitimacy in its own right. It is this very thing that created the psychological and social permission for Americans to keep slaves 150 years ago, or for Nazi's and their sympathizers to kill jews 65 years ago. It is WRONG, it is classless and it reflects poorly on us as a society to legitimize it and tell the victims and the out groups to just get over it.
  6. There is nothing "genuine" about pizzing on out groups.
  7. I aint aboyut being overly sensitive my friend. As a 21 year NCO ...I can let fly with a lot of stuff that might be considered "insensitive". The difference is that it isn't RACIST or otherwise dehumanizing of my opponient based on the color f his skin, his sexual orientation /preference or otherwise. I stick to the issue at hand. It makes for better, more interesting discussion and debate. And it stands half a chance of maybe winning some over to the cause that I happen to be supportive of. Too bad otherwise intelligent peole can't see their way clearly to do the same. In the end, that element is what is bringing down our country...quite shamefully.
  8. Using bigoted epithets is not about sticks and stones. Those are simply easy words to throw about anonymously in a discussion forum. Outside that environment, those words HAVE been used to dehumanize people and keep them in an underclass. To continue to use them is classless if not morally wrong. Further, I am nearly certain you would not use them in the presence of whatever group fits the particular epithet you choose to spout...because it would put all on noticem fairly or not of your character...if not cause you to suffer legal or even...physical consequences. I don't know if you'd use those terms face to face with a Mexican or Homeosexual...but even being a non betting man..I'd take the bet that you wouldn't do it in a face to face, in person situation. That unfortunately reaks of cowardice. Too bad Kudzu, you're a smart guy on so many levels and I have tried to remain respectful of you but on this you are WRONG!
  9. You are absolutely F--ing incorrigible! Could you just stop undermining yourself with the epithets. YOU can make a sound argument without resorting to bush league, neanderthalism.
  10. Only thing I don't get with the Terror plot theory.... When terrorists strike, they almost always claim responsibility...no one has here. So it is suspect to me. However there are an awful lot of oddities on this whole thing.
  11. I would watch those too. Particularly if they were documentaries. I haven't nearly enough knowledge about the history of Africa.
  12. No. Actually I am a actually convinced that Global Warming is caused by humanity. The problem as I see it is more of the way the narrative has gotten polarized to the extent that at times we are paralyzed to act (by way of intelligent public policy). We have a lot of emerging technologies that can help us make a serious dent in the problem. Given time to research and develop the existing technologies as well as new ones we might even be able to sell them far more braodly in the international marketplace...particularly in Third World countries where they have no capacity to keep up and yet continue to create enormous amounts of pollution. But... The technology we have is not yet mainstream enough to completely forego the old fossil fuels just yet. We need to be smart about coal and oil and so forth...to keep our energy prices reasonable until such time as we can truly afford to "pull the plug" on fossil fuels. So...to get back to the more direct answer to your question... We cannot win over the "non-believers" by continually insulting them. Further, we demand sound arguments from them...so we should hold up our strongest arguments. Eventually, the science will squeeze enough doubt out of the deniers that they will have to come around...but it has to be done "cleanly".
  13. Not saying there is a flaw in the source...their science may be dead on accurate and the study conducted with absolute integrity but it hurts the argument when the vested or potential conflict of interest is so clear and easy to pick out. However I agree with you that it is difficult if not nearly impossible to find ANY source for either side that is not somehow tied to some financial interest. Even non-profits pay their people.
  14. One problem...however much I am inclined to agree with the soure...the source appears to have a vested interest in being right...which would likely justify future support for his project. That alone doesn't mean his data is flawed...just that it should be respectfully viewed with a touch of skepticism. Just saying...