Watching the confirmation process for Amy Barrett, one hears people say that her religion should not be a factor, and that if it is, bigotry has occurred. Likewise, if one says the Catholic church has inordinate political power in America, one may be called a bigot. Then there is Zionism. To some minds, any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. A progressive who questions whether Israel's creation was justified may be put into the same category as Klan members. An American who questions why we have a homeless problem when the US gives billions of dollars in aid to Israel is condemned. Seems to me that both are cases of ad hominem debate, defined by Wikipedia as: Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Should we all be more aware of this tactic and how lame it is? How it stifles debate and keeps the empowered in a dominate position?
It isn't just religion there is currently a cancer penetrating EVERY aspect of modern life and like any cancer it needs cutting out now before it does any more damage, the name of this cancer is 'equality'! Now before anyone starts jumping up and down let us look at equality, something that in reality hardly exists any more, Now I am highly experienced and qualified to do a job within the electrical industry. Let us suppose that I and others go for a job interview, now true equality states that, in the event of me being the most suitable candidate by means of experience and qualifications, then the job should go to me. Now however in the modern version of equality, and occasionally diversity, the person who gets the job may not be the best qualified, or even the one with the most practical experience, they may get the job because they are Gay, or Lesbian, or Transgender, or Black, or Muslim or whatever happens to be in vogue at the time. I once heard a story, true I might add, about an employer, a large UK organisation, one day it was mentioned that they didn't have any people from a certain culture employed within the organisation. A large amount of money was spent in trying to attract members of this group to join the organisation, all to no avail, none of them wanted to do the job. Eventually it was an ordinary worker who pointed out the reason why nobody from this group would join the organisation, in their culture the job in question was regarded as the most lowly job a man could do. Why oh why was it necessary to spend massive amounts of money trying to recruit people who would simply not do the job, surely at least one of the 'experts' should have known this. There are far too many people getting into jobs that they are unsuitable for, be it because of race, creed, cultural background, or as I was once a victim of, the 'old school tie' as it is known. You only have to look at the British government to see how it works, the number of people in jobs they are unsuitable for and cannot do simply because of who they are married to, or who they went to school with, or who they know is staggering. There is an old saying, 'it's not what you know it's who you know, and the money is in what you know about who you know' , you only have to look at the way Dominic Cummins wraps Boris Johnson around his finger to know this is true.
"Social capital" does play too big a role. Look at Hollywood, where screenplays are only considered if they were written by connected people. The other day, I heard a progressive say the kind of white men who gravitate to militias have no reason to gripe about their economic positions. I pointed out to her that those guys have no social capital. They don't know anyone. "Social networking" isn't a concept that is appropriately applied to the poor. (I was in no way condoning militias. I was just attempting to help her see her own privilege. And yes, she is from a group with social capital.)
As it concerns being Catholic, I think it unfair to paint everyone with the same brush; though there may be some commonality. It would be a little like painting all Protestants, Jews, or Muslims the same way - grossly inaccurate. And though there are many distinct unique traits that separate us all, Christians have a reputation for being decent, regardless of denomination. I think to characterize Christianity as immoral, unethical, or even problematic is a little cavalier and slightly myopic - to me, it says "I can only see things from my own (possibly atheist or agnostic) point of view, and can't accept that religion and God is the guiding moral compass for the majority of humanity. That reputation, I believe, serves as a solid character reference, with a lot depending on piety and attendance... SO, as it pertains to a seat on the highest court, objectivity & intellect, or really any position in society, I don't think we can fairly make any assertions based solely on religious notions, no. It's all about the person. And don't most practicing Catholics possess a guiding moral compass?
I have alweays recognized ad hominen attacks, as I have been the one being treated this way quite frequently. It's disingenuous to the max.
Well I don't have the money to spare on expensive Arms, ammunition and membership dues at a shooting range. Like the majority of Americans, they have no reason to gripe about their economic condition.
Phil That would be against the law in the UK [Equality Act 2010] you cannot discriminate even if it is ‘positive’ discrimination – I would however point to the many studies that have shown that people with black or ethnic names are less likely to be called in for an interview than those with ‘white’ sounding names Why your name matters in the search for a job - UK Employers' Replies to Racial Names - US
Phil Sorry I once heard a story is not evidence – can you please present actual evidence (you have form here in presenting ‘stories’ to back up your arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny) Unless you have firm evidence of this happening people should treat this as just a story, a fictional tale. Problem here is that you are mixing two different things – that people are getting regular jobs they are unsuitable for because of race, creed, cultural background and political corruption and cronyism. It is difficult to produce evidence of the first (as pointed out above the opposite has often been the case) but the second has been going on for a long time in the UK Trying to conflate the two is highly disingenuous
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, "being above criticism" means "being so good that no one can doubt or criticize you." If one purports to be above criticism, then either conceit or deception is involved, and therefore the person is not above criticism. As a tactic to achieve some end other than simple goodness or kindness, it's an illusion. Few people are actually that good. I'm not. People who are so good that they're above criticism don't waste time telling you how good they are. People who are above criticism don't get criticized, or they're too busy doing good deeds to even notice the criticism. They certainly aren't going to waste their time refuting criticism or defending their goodness. They're too busy doing good. If goodness is your actual goal, then let the critics have their fun, but don't pay them any attention. However, if your idea of being good is using your breath to tell others how good you are, then you're inviting valid criticism. You aren't so good as to be above criticism.
Looking at character as well as motive are integral parts of the legal system AS well as being portrayed in TV and movies so its well ingrained in society ( not advocating just making point)
It's interesting to me that Christianity is a private matter and it's rude to suggest that faith should not affect policy. America is a Christian nation after all and Christians are always right. But with Islam the slightest hint that may effect your decision making makes you a bad person. Ilhan Omar dresses in a traditional Islamic way and that has triggered the right wing for years. Would they feel the same if a female dressed like a nun? It's the same idea, a women has decided to be modest for god and to not tempt men. Especially odd when you consider that Omar's ideas are more in line with the bible than anything Republicans or Barrett have come up with. Strange times in America when one party welcomes anti-Semites while also claiming any criticism of Jews is racist. I made a whole thread about this in the conspiracy section. It's hard to say anything about the flaws in Jewish/ Christian laws without being accused of hating the very idea that person has faith. The American right wing believes it owns morality. I don't know I am pretty sure Jesus would be a Bernie bro who wanted kids to play with their friends not be locked in a cage not someone who puts MAGA stickers all over their diesel truck and open carries.
