CDZ If MLK was a womanizer does it matter?

[SSDD]

You've gotten those in spades. The problem isn't the quality of the evidence of dying coral reefs and melting icecaps, which even non-scientists can notice. The problem for guys on your side is that fixing it would require massive government regulation and intervention, which will come, the question is, will it come in time to solve the problem.[/uote]

More emotional thinking with absolutely no rationality attached. If you are going to call your self logical, you might at least make an effort to try and fake rationality even if it isn't the way you think. You believe that evidence that the climate is changing is evidence that man is causing it? That is why I asked for observed, measured evidence that favors the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...Simple evidence that the climate changes is meaningless..no one ever argued that the climate never changes except perhaps for you wackos who believe that the climate is supposed to remain static because you wish it to be so...evidence of change isn't evidence of the cause of the change...a rational thinking person would know that instinctively....an emotional, political thinker will never grasp it even when it is pointed out.

We have an ethical standard. It's called, "your private life isn't anyone else's business". You guys want to force women to have unwanted babies while your Fuhrer pays off porn stars.

So you admit that your standard is the one that allows you to hide in the dark...the traditional response of those whose character is flawed...the place where you can be what you want without fear of actually being exposed for what you are...no surprise.

Uh, buddy, if you see kids being thrown into concentration camps, and you aren't having an emotional reaction to it, that is far more worrisome.

Concentration camps? More abject emotionalism...at this point the fact that you believe yourself to be a rational thinker is just sad...you haven't expressed a rational thought since the conversation started....

Here is the inside of a detention center under the Trump administration:

And here is a picture of the sort of detention center Obama provided:

While neither is actually a concentration camp, one is certainly a more pleasant place to be detained than the other....

You are blinded by your emotionalism and abject lack of reasoning capacity.

Um, yeah, these were all wars against evil regimes that started up with us... What is your point? Our foreign policy should be 'We don't start wars, we finish them!" The World Wars had been going on for years before the Central Powers/Axis decided attacking us was a good game plan. Korea was a case were North Korea and China attacked South Korea and our troops there.

And the emotional, lack of reasoned argument continues..."evil" by whose standards? And again, with the whining because our policy doesn't agree with you...boo hoo hoo...Here, have a tissue.

But that was the point. Ike committed us to supporting Diem... so everything that followed was kind of his fault. Both parties were locked into this "Who Lost Vietnam" mode, and even though Nixon was the guy who finally sold Saigon out, the Democrats STILL got the blame for it.

And yet more unreasoned whining...you clearly don't know the history and have simply applied your idea of political storytelling and speak as if that simple act makes it true...typical of political, emotional thinkers...

The problem here is that you have found ways to rationalize your own selfish behaviors as "logic".

Sorry guy...but I have no problem being judged on the content of my character...it is you who prefers to hide in the dark..and cringes at the thought of a society judging you based on any ethical standard....I simply say how it is without apology simply because that is how it is...you on the other hand are the one who finds it necessary to rationalize everything.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Simple evidence that the climate changes is meaningless..no one ever argued that the climate never changes except perhaps for you wackos who believe that the climate is supposed to remain static because you wish it to be so...evidence of change isn't evidence of the cause of the change...a rational thinking person would know that instinctively....an emotional, political thinker will never grasp it even when it is pointed out.

Uh, guy, the climate is changing a lot faster than it should...that's the point about the ice caps and the coral reefs. When you get your Ph.D. in Climatology, you can tell me why that's no bid deal.

[
So you admit that your standard is the one that allows you to hide in the dark...the traditional response of those whose character is flawed...the place where you can be what you want without fear of actually being exposed for what you are...no surprise.

Yeah, I don't really want people watching me when I go to the can, do you?

Again, for all my flaws, I've never paid off a porn star for sleeping with her while my pregnant wife was at home with our kid. Nor have I started a charity that was used to buy things for myself. Or you know, everything else Trump does, but you guys are cool with it because he might ban abortion some day.

Here is the inside of a detention center under the Trump administration:

Really? So all those members of Congress and observers who are reporting horrible things in Trump's concentration camps are just lying? You know what I don't see in that picture? PEOPLE. What do these camps look like when you have six people to a bed, crowded in, drinking out of the toilet.

[
And the emotional, lack of reasoned argument continues..."evil" by whose standards? And again, with the whining because our policy doesn't agree with you...boo hoo hoo...Here, have a tissue.

Wow, so are arguing that the Axis, that killed close to 70 million people in wars of aggression, wasn't "evil"? Really?

[
Sorry guy...but I have no problem being judged on the content of my character...it is you who prefers to hide in the dark..and cringes at the thought of a society judging you based on any ethical standard....I simply say how it is without apology simply because that is how it is...you on the other hand are the one who finds it necessary to rationalize everything.

Usually, when your side whines about "ethical standards", it's about keeping "those people" in their place. When your side holds your own to an ethical standard, then you can come back and talk.

 

[SSDD]

Uh, guy, the climate is changing a lot faster than it should...that's the point about the ice caps and the coral reefs. When you get your Ph.D. in Climatology, you can tell me why that's no bid deal.

How fast "should" the climate change? What valid proxy evidence do you think exists that tell us how fast the climate should change in a 150 year period. The only proxy temperature reconstructions that we have that get close to 100 year resolution are derived from ice cores and they show us that in the past 10,000 years, greater temperature changes than anything we have seen both going towards warmer and towards cooler have happened in much shorter time spans than we have seen.

So again...lets see any valid evidence which favors your claim of man made climate change over natural variability....because evidence that we have on natural variability shows us changes that are both greater, and faster than anything we have seen.

Think you can get past your emotional political thinking long enough to produce such evidence or will you, in your frustration at not being able to produce it, simply resort to more logical fallacy?

Yeah, I don't really want people watching me when I go to the can, do you?

Hiding behind sarcasm? Because we both know this isn't about your bowel habits...more emotionalism in lieu of rationality

Really? So all those members of Congress and observers who are reporting horrible things in Trump's concentration camps are just lying? You know what I don't see in that picture? PEOPLE. What do these camps look like when you have six people to a bed, crowded in, drinking out of the toilet.

Why yes...it should be abundantly obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that the present crop of democrats are so frustrated by his success that they are prepared to lie their asses off in an effort to smear trump... The photos speak for themselves...

Wow, so are arguing that the Axis, that killed close to 70 million people in wars of aggression, wasn't "evil"? Really?

I am not arguing anything.....I am merely pointing out the lack of logic on your part...picking and choosing what is evil and what isn't...whining because laws don't deliver the outcomes you wish for and on and on in a seemingly never ending pity party in which you are the guest of honor.

Usually, when your side whines about "ethical standards", it's about keeping "those people" in their place. When your side holds your own to an ethical standard, then you can come back and talk.

Again...no rational thought...which side has been, by far more successful in creating generational dependence on government in order to keep "those people" in their place? You don't seem to be willing to admit that politicians on your side are dirt balls as well..and have done far more damage with their plans to keep "those people" in their place than a conservative society ever could. It seems that you are so far away from rational thinking that you can't even fake it...your claim to have been a rational, logical thinker were clearly false.

 

[JoeB131]

How fast "should" the climate change?

When you get your Ph.D. in Climatology, you can come back and tell me.

Why yes...it should be abundantly obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that the present crop of democrats are so frustrated by his success that they are prepared to lie their asses off in an effort to smear trump... The photos speak for themselves...

Yes, they do. A staged photo and keeping reporters, observers and anyone else out of those camps to keep the horror of what is going on down there, including ELEVEN DEATHS, a secret.

You don't seem to be willing to admit that politicians on your side are dirt balls as well..

1) I don't have " a side".
2) I get a little bored with people who want to tell me what my morality should be when they don't live up to those standards themselves. While I find it funny when some televangelist is caught with a bunch of Crystal meth and a rent-boy, the fact that these people have so much influence on our culture is a lot less funny.

 

[SSDD]

How fast "should" the climate change?

When you get your Ph.D. in Climatology, you can come back and tell me.

So you are back to logical fallacy in lieu of any rational argument. How unsurprising is that? It is unfortunate that you are so uneducated that you believe that any science, especially a soft science such as climate change is beyond the understanding of anyone who doesn't have a degree in that particular specialty. It clearly indicates how hard the vacuum is in your head with regard to science....and rational thought for that matter. It is as if you think climate science is a science unto itself which relies on none of the other sciences...

Yes, they do. A staged photo and keeping reporters, observers and anyone else out of those camps to keep the horror of what is going on down there, including ELEVEN DEATHS, a secret.

How many people are there...how many people out of that number could be expected to die...how many of those people got there dehydrated, exhausted, and lacking medical attention since they began their journey? How many were older? Do you think rationally about anything?...anything at all?

1) I don't have " a side".

Of course you do...that is obvious to anyone who reads your posts...the fact that you don't realize it is further evidence of your inability to think critically and rationally.

2) I get a little bored with people who want to tell me what my morality should be when they don't live up to those standards themselves. While I find it funny when some televangelist is caught with a bunch of Crystal meth and a rent-boy, the fact that these people have so much influence on our culture is a lot less funny.

Bored? Terrified is the proper word. Your attempt at blasé is not supported by the arguments you make.

I suppose we are done...I only took up this conversation for the purpose of demonstrating that your claim to be a logical and rational thinker was absolute bullshit. We established that within 2 posts...the fact is beyond convention at this point. You are an emotional, political thinker and a top shelf progressive liberal...you clearly have a side because you lack enough knowledge on any topic we have discussed so far to make an informed argument of your own so you rely on one side or another for your talking points...since talking points are all you have demonstrated any capacity for thus far. People who are unable to think critically, or rationally, or logically choose talking points from "their side" of the argument.

For future reference...don't claim to be a rational thinker and then try to defend the claim with slogans, talking points, and propaganda...

 

[JoeB131]

So you are back to logical fallacy in lieu of any rational argument. How unsurprising is that? It is unfortunate that you are so uneducated that you believe that any science, especially a soft science such as climate change is beyond the understanding of anyone who doesn't have a degree in that particular specialty.

It's not a soft science, guy.

How many people are there...how many people out of that number could be expected to die...how many of those people got there dehydrated, exhausted, and lacking medical attention since they began their journey? How many were older? Do you think rationally about anything?...anything at all?

Yes, I rationally think concentration camps are a bad thing. Most decent people do.

Bored? Terrified is the proper word. Your attempt at blasé is not supported by the arguments you make.

You might have a point. Religious nuts are ALWAYS a little terrifying. They think their Magic Friend in the Sky validates their sociopathy.

For future reference...don't claim to be a rational thinker and then try to defend the claim with slogans, talking points, and propaganda...

For future reference, don't act like a stuck up debate class nerd if you don't want your undies bunched in an atomic wedgie...

 

[Disir]

Martin Luther King's sexual exploits aren't exactly a secret. You do have to be careful about believing urban legend. However it seems there is some foundation for believing that he was a real sexual predator. The question that we're asking here is whether or not that should make a difference to his place in history?

If that turns out to be true should the name of the holiday be changed? If he did indeed victimize dozens of women as rumor has it...should his statue still be standing down in DC? Or should the me-too movement speak up until it is removed?

No. Ben Franklin was a lech but we don't disparage him for it. We don't even talk about it. We know that it's there.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

All over the country statues of historical figures are being attacked as details about their personal lives become known.

Columbus day is in the process of losing its name because it has become known that Christopher Columbus was something of a slave trader and a racist.

Bostonians want the name of Faneuil Hall changed because Faneuil at one point in his life owned slaves.

Martin Luther King's sexual exploits aren't exactly a secret. You do have to be careful about believing urban legend. However it seems there is some foundation for believing that he was a real sexual predator. The question that we're asking here is whether or not that should make a difference to his place in history?

If that turns out to be true should the name of the holiday be changed? If he did indeed victimize dozens of women as rumor has it...should his statue still be standing down in DC? Or should the me-too movement speak up until it is removed?

Jo

He was a RAPIST. Yes. It matters.

 

[SSDD]

It's not a soft science, guy.

Of course it is. Do you think your scientific illiteracy is something to be proud of? Something to be put on public display? Get a clue.

Of course climate science is a soft science...That isn't to say that it couldn't have been a hard science....after all, the atmosphere, and the movement of energy through it is eminently measurable, and testable...climatology could have been a hard science if it hadn't been taken over by environmentalists and politicians...and who knows, some day it may mature into a hard science once the pseudoscience is purged..

Clearly, you don't even know what separates hard sciences from soft sciences. Climate science is without a doubt, a soft science pretending to be a hard science. It is paraded around as if it were a hard science. It is paraded as such, not because of the science itself, but but because of the influence it has in other spheres of influence. It has become nothing more than a tool in a very old war of between cultures. The fact is that you can reliably predict which direction someone will lean on climate science by nothing more than the social spheres in which they move. It isn't entirely predictable, but that is how it goes with soft sciences...

The fact is that a graduate with a BS in one of the hard sciences such as chemistry, physics, engineering, even meteorology could teach any level of class up to and including the PhD level in a climate science curriculum, while a graduate with a PhD in climatology would be utterly lost trying to teach even 4000 level courses in any hard science cirriculum....much less in the masters or PhD level course load. Take a look at any curriculum for a degree in climatology, then compare it to the curriculum in any of the hard sciences...

Make no mistake...climate science, as it stands is a soft science...your believe that it is a hard science is only more evidence of your inability to look at the topic rationally.

Yes, I rationally think concentration camps are a bad thing. Most decent people do.

And yet more emotional, political thinking...You wouldn't know what rational thought feels like...the fact that you use politically inspired buzzwords like concentration camp is evidence of that fact. You are a political hack who simply doesn't want to admit it to himself.. the more you talk...the more pathetic you become.

You might have a point. Religious nuts are ALWAYS a little terrifying. They think their Magic Friend in the Sky validates their sociopathy.

And the flood of irrational, politically motivated speech continues. Are you not aware that it is leftists like you who are actively calling for the execution of people you don't agree with? You are the one who has stumbled into a cult that would gladly see people rounded up and killed for nothing more than their beliefs...

For future reference, don't act like a stuck up debate class nerd if you don't want your undies bunched in an atomic wedgie...

Sorry joe...you don't have the intellectual wattage necessary to make a rational statement on what seems to be any topic...the idea of you giving me an intellectual wedgie is quaint.......and pitiful at the same time...you are a political hack driven by your emotions...primarily fear and anger in that order...I would suggest that you stop kidding yourself and take a critical look at what drives you, but that would be an absolute waste of time....I doubt that you would even be capable of the exercise...much less able to understand what is obvious to anyone who speaks to you.

 

[Polishprince]

All over the country statues of historical figures are being attacked as details about their personal lives become known.

Columbus day is in the process of losing its name because it has become known that Christopher Columbus was something of a slave trader and a racist.

Bostonians want the name of Faneuil Hall changed because Faneuil at one point in his life owned slaves.

Martin Luther King's sexual exploits aren't exactly a secret. You do have to be careful about believing urban legend. However it seems there is some foundation for believing that he was a real sexual predator. The question that we're asking here is whether or not that should make a difference to his place in history?

If that turns out to be true should the name of the holiday be changed? If he did indeed victimize dozens of women as rumor has it...should his statue still be standing down in DC? Or should the me-too movement speak up until it is removed?

Jo

He was a RAPIST. Yes. It matters.

I don't know if MLK was a rapist or not- I was just a kid when his acolytes burned down the American Ghettoes in 1968 in response to him getting whacked.


But the facts are that James Ray said he was innocent, the King Family opined that he was innocent. Ray certainly didn't have a known motive to whack MLK.

If MLK was raping broads, or there were people who thought the MLK was raping their mothers or daughters, that would certainly be a clue as to why King got his ass capped in Memphis. Dr. King was well loved, but if someone found out, or thought they found out, that he was Marty the Ripper, the case might be solvable.

Its really disturbing when so many black leaders, MLK, Tupac,Ron Brown, Notorious Big, get assassinated and the case remains unresolved.

 

[Mac1958]

As media becomes more and more pervasive, we're learning more and more that people are human.

The only people who "care" about stuff like this are those who are desperate to use it against the person.

That person's message is their message, even though they're human - from MLK to Gahdhi to our Founding Fathers.

 

[Polishprince]

As media becomes more and more pervasive, we're learning more and more that people are human.

The only people who "care" about stuff like this are those who are desperate to use it against the person.

That person's message is their message, even though they're human - from MLK to Gahdhi to our Founding Fathers.

I agree in part, but in the case of MLK, its a matter of solving the circumstances of his murder. If King committed- or was assumed to have committed- an act which someone might have been seeking revenge for- it could point the way to who capped him. The thing that really puzzled me about MLK's assassination is why weren't any of the others on the balcony clipped? If the assumed motive- that the shooter just didn't like blacks- was true, the assassin would have popped the rest of them, as they were all black too.

 

[justoffal]

As media becomes more and more pervasive, we're learning more and more that people are human.

The only people who "care" about stuff like this are those who are desperate to use it against the person.

That person's message is their message, even though they're human - from MLK to Gahdhi to our Founding Fathers.

I agree in part, but in the case of MLK, its a matter of solving the circumstances of his murder. If King committed- or was assumed to have committed- an act which someone might have been seeking revenge for- it could point the way to who capped him. The thing that really puzzled me about MLK's assassination is why weren't any of the others on the balcony clipped? If the assumed motive- that the shooter just didn't like blacks- was true, the assassin would have popped the rest of them, as they were all black too.

Additionally even though people loathe the term whataboutism....it becomes an important tool in assessing the sincerity of a given movement versus what they perceive to be improper or impure standards. If these human facts are indeed true about MLK if he was really no better or worse than DJT. To watch the left make a spectacle out of every single foible they see in Trump's history but then at the same time to overlook what appears to be numerous similar faults in the history of a left-wing icon more or less defeats their argument before they begin it. that exposes them as partisan hacks instead of the pretend patrons of moral excellence they're claiming to be.

Jo

 

[Staidhup]

So who cares? The rules changed years ago, let me refresh you if I may, if your conservative it hits the front page, if your a Dim then it’s a lie and the accuser is dragged through the mud and revelation relegated to the back page.

 

[justoffal]

As media becomes more and more pervasive, we're learning more and more that people are human.

The only people who "care" about stuff like this are those who are desperate to use it against the person.

That person's message is their message, even though they're human - from MLK to Gahdhi to our Founding Fathers.

I agree in part, but in the case of MLK, its a matter of solving the circumstances of his murder. If King committed- or was assumed to have committed- an act which someone might have been seeking revenge for- it could point the way to who capped him. The thing that really puzzled me about MLK's assassination is why weren't any of the others on the balcony clipped? If the assumed motive- that the shooter just didn't like blacks- was true, the assassin would have popped the rest of them, as they were all black too.

I think people are overthinking it. King was murdered by a career racist who simply hated him for who he was. The rest of the story is that King is and was just as human as anyone else in fact he was probably a rank womanizer who by today's standards would be me too'd into oblivion.

That simple.

JO

 

[Jackson]

All over the country statues of historical figures are being attacked as details about their personal lives become known.

Columbus day is in the process of losing its name because it has become known that Christopher Columbus was something of a slave trader and a racist.

Bostonians want the name of Faneuil Hall changed because Faneuil at one point in his life owned slaves.

Martin Luther King's sexual exploits aren't exactly a secret. You do have to be careful about believing urban legend. However it seems there is some foundation for believing that he was a real sexual predator. The question that we're asking here is whether or not that should make a difference to his place in history?

If that turns out to be true should the name of the holiday be changed? If he did indeed victimize dozens of women as rumor has it...should his statue still be standing down in DC? Or should the me-too movement speak up until it is removed?

Jo

Very interesting post. I had heard long ago that he had affairs as well. But honestly, could his supporters allow his statues to be brought down? Others have been with innuendo and without facts, is that true?