LordReed:


What does inherent racism mean?

It means when racism is a core part of you.

aadoiza:

It means when racism is a core part of you.

And why is it not wrong?

aadoiza:

Those emboldened lines just about do it for me.
If you as much as sense hypocrisy and dishonesty in the messenger, you seek your counsel elsewhere.

Do you realise you discuss with a lot of individuals on NL that you have determined are hypocrites and dishonest?

Why do you continue to read what they write and discuss with them?

budaatum:


Do you realise you discuss with a lot of individuals on NL that you have determined are hypocrites and dishonest?

Why do you continue to read what they write and discuss with them?

I can't go about stamping the the "hypocrite" label on just about anyone or any advocate I come across. I have to know them or know of them to do that, and if I don’t but their ideas to appeal to me, I might just imbibe them.

LordReed:


And why is it not wrong?

I don't get this.

aadoiza:

I can't go about stamping the the "hypocrite" label on just about anyone or any advocate I come across. I have to know them or know of them to do that, and if I don’t but their ideas to appeal to me, I might just imbibe them.

"But their ideas to appeal to me", is exactly what many have been saying here all along!

But that is not the point I am raising here. Let us consider those that their ideas do not appeal to you, and that you don't need to stamp them. Though I do not share this view, and will stamp them just so they know they are stamped, and as you stamped buda a bully.

So, lets take buda, as our example. I think your general opinion of buda is negative, yet you still converse with buda. Why?

aadoiza:

I don't get this.

Why is inherent racism not wrong?

LordReed:


Why is inherent racism not wrong?

I didn't say it's not wrong. I meant it is the real you as your flaws are not.

budaatum:

"But their ideas to appeal to me", is exactly what many have been saying here all along!

But that is not the point I am raising here. Let us consider those that their ideas do not appeal to you, and that you don't need to stamp them. Though I do not share this view, and will stamp them just so they know they are stamped, and as you stamped buda a bully.

So, lets take buda, as our example. I think your general opinion of buda is negative, yet you still converse with buda. Why?

This is what I mean, if your idea or counsel appeals to me—but I don't know if you, the proponent, act contrary to it or not I might make use you of it if the need arises. However; if I know you act contrary to your counsel, I will shitt on you, shiit on your counsel, and seek it elsewhere.

aadoiza:

I didn't say it's not wrong. I meant it is the real you as your flaws are not.

So inherent racism is not a flaw?

aadoiza:

This is what I mean, if your idea or counsel appeals to me—but I don't know if you, the proponent, act contrary to it or not I might make use you of it if the need arises. However; if I know you act contrary to your counsel, I will shitt on you, shiit on your counsel, and seek it elsewhere.

But you will read that counsel or you will not be able to shitt, right?

Can you now see why one may read certain things?

Would it be intelligent to shitt on that which one is ignorant of, for instance, to denigrate a book one has not read even if one knows negative things about the author?

Can you consider that rather than shitt, one may read it to understand so one can better determine whether to shitt or embrace it or the person?

Can you also consider that not all messages are counsel though written to counsel, Hitler's Mein Kampf, being a clear example?

Can you give reasons for reading Hitler's Mein Kampf?

LordReed:


So inherent racism is not a flaw?

It is not. This means one is a born racist. This means one is well known for committing the act. But if one only gets caught up in racism in the heat of the moment and not known for it, then you can call it their flaw.

budaatum:


But you will read that counsel or you will not be able to shitt, right?

Can you now see why one may read certain things?

Would it be intelligent to shitt on that which one is ignorant of, for instance, to denigrate a book one has not read even if one knows negative things about the author?

You need to get my point clearly before anything else. 8 would not shitt on a book I have not read but would do so if knew beforehand that the author is fond of not practicing what he preaches.

aadoiza:

You need to get my point clearly before anything else. 8 would not shitt on a book I have not read but would do so if knew beforehand that the author is fond of not practicing what he preaches.

How can you know if "the author is fond of not practicing what he preaches" if you have not read the book he preached it in?

That after all is what you have done here, not read the book then claim the author is not practising what he wrote in his book that you never read!

budaatum:


How can you know if "the author is fond of not practicing what he preaches" if you have not read the book he preached it in?

That after all is what you have done here, not read the book then claim the author is not practising what he wrote in his book that you never read!

I might have read a book of his before, or I might have heard of his "not practising what he preaches" inclinations.

I have read the book not because the author does not practice what he preaches but I simply don't know about the book. My presupposition about the 'messenger /message' relative importance was based on the whole not an individual.

aadoiza:

I might have read a book of his before, or I might have heard of his "not practising what he preaches" inclinations.

I have read the book not because the author does not practice what he preaches but I simply don't know about the book. My presupposition about the 'messenger /message' relative importance was based on the whole not an individual.

You have not read the book referred to in this thread, aadozia, we both know you haven't, and you never read any book by Heidegger, that is glaringly obvious!

Also, how can you "have read the book" and "simply don't know about the book" at the same time? Are you doing atheist dead found Christ live like buda wrote to have done, lol.

How can you claim, "My presupposition about the 'messenger /message' relative importance was based on the whole not an individual", when you have not read the book?

Is the person "the whole", as far as you are concerned?

aadoiza:

It is not. This means one is a born racist. This means one is well known for committing the act. But if one only gets caught up in racism in the heat of the moment and not known for it, then you can call it their flaw.

So anything you are born with is not a flaw?

LordReed:


So anything you are born with is not a flaw?

And who told him one is born with the ignorance to not be able to heal oneself of the flaw of racism?

I wonder if he'll agree one is born with homosexuality too.

LordReed:


So anything you are born with is not a flaw?

I would not go that far. Besides, it was more figurative than literal.
Look at this way: if you brought an ice block outside of refrigeration for some time, Would you call this ice block water if only about 5% of its volume has thawed away? No. It's still an ice block.

budaatum:


You have not read the book referred to in this thread, aadozia, we both know you haven't, and you never read any book by Heidegger, that is glaringly obvious!

Also, how can you "have read the book" and "simply don't know about the book" at the same time? Are you doing atheist dead found Christ live like buda wrote to have done, lol.

How can you claim, "My presupposition about the 'messenger /message' relative importance was based on the whole not an individual", when you have not read the book?

Is the person "the whole", as far as you are concerned?

What is this again now? Did I tell you anywhere that I have read the book ni? The only time I ever read anything about your heidegger was in GST102. Must I read his books? Abi must I read the books you read.
Person dey talk on a general level, this one dey limit am to one book. Martiann said your guy was a known racist and you said it doesn't matter, and that his message is more important. I came in at this point to say the messenger is more important than his message.
Abeg I no fit dey repeat myself like a primary school pupil. I no get that time.

aadoiza:

What is this again now? Did I tell you anywhere that I have read the book ni? The only time I ever read anything about your heidegger was in GST102. Must I read his books? Abi must I read the books you read.
Person dey talk on a general level, this one dey limit am to one book. Martiann said your guy was a known racist and you said it doesn't matter, and that his message is more important. I came in at this point to say the messenger is more important than his message.
Abeg I no fit dey repeat myself like a primary school pupil. I no get that time.

Martian did not say Heidegger was a known racist. I told Martian about Heidegger being a card carrying nazi, which Martian thanked me for informing him of.

But this proves my point, I guess. You do not read anything before you jump to false opinions about that which you know nothing about!

aadoiza:

I would not go that far. Besides, it was more figurative than literal.
Look at this way: if you brought an ice block outside of refrigeration for some time, Would you call this ice block water if only about 5% of its volume has thawed away? No. It's still an ice block.

What makes inherent racism not a flaw but others are flaws?

aadoiza:

What is this again now? Did I tell you anywhere that I have read the book ni? The only time I ever read anything about your heidegger was in GST102. Must I read his books? Abi must I read the books you read.
Person dey talk on a general level, this one dey limit am to one book. Martiann said your guy was a known racist and you said it doesn't matter, and that his message is more important. I came in at this point to say the messenger is more important than his message.
Abeg I no fit dey repeat myself like a primary school pupil. I no get that time.

Calm down no one is insulting you, now are you a Christian?

SegFault:

Calm down no one is insulting you, now are you a Christian?

I'm not saying she's insulting me but rather attributing what I never said to me. Why the faith question?

LordReed:


What makes inherent racism not a flaw but others are flaws?

If anyone could be described as an embodiment of racism, then then the racism in them should not be seen as s flaw but rather their own very nature.

budaatum:


Martian did not say Heidegger was a known racist. I told Martian about Heidegger being a card carrying nazi, which Martian thanked me for informing him of.

But this proves my point, I guess. You do not read anything before you jump to false opinions about that which you know nothing about!

Go back and read all his comments, he called your heidegger a racist.

aadoiza:

Go back and read all his comments, he called your heidegger a racist.

Please stop lying. Especially when your lying can very easily be proven.

Though, even with evidence placed in front of you I bet you'd continue insisting you are right!

Martian never called Heidegger a racist!

budaatum:


Please stop lying. Especially when your lying can very easily be proven.

Though, even with evidence placed in front of you I bet you'd continue insisting you are right!

Martian never called Heidegger a racist!

He did not call your master heidegger racist. Na kant

aadoiza:

He called your master heidegger racist, deal with it.

You too lie, aadozia, lol, or you just can not read!

Martian:
Kant himself was notoriously racist. He treated race as a scientific category (which it is not), correlated it with the ability for abstract thought, and – theorising on the destiny of races in lectures to students – arranged them in a hierarchical order:

Heidegger was a member and supporter of the Nazi Party.[19][20] There is controversy as to the relationship between his philosophy and his Nazism.[21][22]

Hegel had some great ideas about non-Europeans too.

budaatum:


You too lie, aadozia, lol, or you just can not read!

I had already modified it, it was not your master but kant.

aadoiza:

If anyone could be described as an embodiment of racism, then then the racism in them should not be seen as s flaw but rather their own very nature.

So if anybody can be described as an embodiment of wickedness, it's simply their nature and not a flaw? How about stupidity would it also not be a flaw?

aadoiza:

I had already modified it, it was not your master but kant.

Aadozia! So instead of admitting you were wrong, you modified it, lol!

As I said:

budaatum:

Though, even with evidence placed in front of you I bet you'd continue insisting you are right!