so Harry Belafonte Condemns Jay-z and beyonce Vol. Bruce Springsteen is black to him

[futuremd]

What is an obligation that exists innately in and of itself?

name one thing that is not a choice but an obligation.

To have a living entity, cellular respiration is an obligation. Is living an obligation? The universe says no.

Do you know what obligation is? Not in your own definition but the one that is already in existence.

1.something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.
2.something that is done or is to be done for such reasons: to fulfill one's obligations.
3.a binding promise, contract, sense of duty, etc.
4.the act of binding or obliging oneself by a promise, contract, etc.
5.Law .
a.
an agreement enforceable by law, originally applied to promises under seal.
b.
a document containing such an agreement.
c.
a bond containing a penalty, with a condition annexed for payment of money, performance of covenants, etc.


It its a mothers duty and to care for her child. She has the choice to do so or not but she has a obligation to take proper care of her child.

Its funny because "obligation" has existed for thousands of years until Putty decided a couple hours ago that it doesnt exist anymore

Too damn smart for his own good. He's grown from smart to smug an arrogant.

Its to a point where I seriously wonder what he inner circle is like. If he has a girl/wife, does she see this side of him

Would she be like him? Do they argue extensively about toppings on their pizza? Does she also have folders, a briefcase, phone, tablet, pc and laptop on standby to research and prove why regular bacon is batter than Canadian bacon?

Its all in good fun Putty/MD. So I would hope you take none of it personal.

RKO2004, you're being dense man. All of your definitions of obligations are CHOICES. 

There is no such thing as being completely and totally obliged to something.

Even when you sign a contract you AGREE to the terms.

Even after agreeing you have the choice of not fulfilling the contract.

However, the only thing that keeps people from reneging on their agreements is the threat of a consequence that society at large will impose on you.

Yet, and still, you are free to make the choice to not fulfill that contract.

This is about choices. 

Obligations exist only in the subjective definitions society has molded them to be.

In some places its an obligation to get married by stealing your bride http://www.vice.com/vice-news/bride-kidnapping-in-kyrgyzstan-part-1

In other places its an obligation to have young men perform fellatio older men and ingest their semen http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/pg.php

Obligations don't exist. There are merely choices made to engage in different behaviors. 

 

[futuremd]

Its funny because "obligation" has existed for thousands of years until Putty decided a couple hours ago that it doesnt exist anymore

What is an obligation?

If you're just going to re-word the concept of "choice" then don't bother. 

I actually believe the dictionary definition has been posted by myself and somebody else in this thread.

Obligations as defined in those definitions relate to choices being made.

If someone says you have an obligation to stick around for your children, do you HAVE to do that or is that a choice you make? And you know the answer to this...

Obligations don't exist. Read your definitions. They are strong convictions people hold because of some other concept of duty or emotion or whatever that people choose to embrace. Whatever that set of values may be, its all voluntary that you chose to adopt it.

Being religious is voluntary. Being vegan is voluntary. Protecting kids from molestation is voluntary. 

All your definitions do is explain what contracts are. Contracts are VOLUNTARILY agreed upon and even then people can renege the terms stated in the face of a consequence or penalty. If they want to face that penalty, then its on them, but they have a CHOICE to face that consequence or societal expectation of what happens if you don't fulfill that prior choice. 

A society CHOOSES what it will honor and value. 

There is no such thing as an objective obligation, only choices. 

 

[solarius49]

Its funny because "obligation" has existed for thousands of years until Putty decided a couple hours ago that it doesnt exist anymore

What is an obligation?


If you're just going to re-word the concept of "choice" then don't bother. 

I actually believe the dictionary definition has been posted by myself and somebody else in this thread.

Obligations as defined in those definitions relate to choices being made.

So the dictionary defined it wrong?

 

[futuremd]

Its funny because "obligation" has existed for thousands of years until Putty decided a couple hours ago that it doesnt exist anymore

What is an obligation?


If you're just going to re-word the concept of "choice" then don't bother. 

I actually believe the dictionary definition has been posted by myself and somebody else in this thread.

Obligations as defined in those definitions relate to choices being made.
 

So the dictionary defined it wrong?

You misused what the dictionary was saying. 

An obligation is a choice someone makes to adhere to something.

Its still a choice. 

The word "obligation" is used to make it sound more official by saying they're binded by "duty, honor, or faith" or some other nebulous poetic sophistry. 

There is no such thing as an obligation, merely the choice to commit an action. 

EDIT: Peep the definitions. They say things you're binded to by law...but are you binded to those laws by choice or do you fear consequences?

You're not binded by anything you don't choose to be binded to. 

 

[saintanton]

Obligations as defined in those definitions relate to choices being made.

If someone says you have an obligation to stick around for your children, do you HAVE to do that or is that a choice you make? And you know the answer to this...

Obligations don't exist. Read your definitions. They are strong convictions people hold because of some other concept of duty or emotion or whatever that people choose to embrace. Whatever that set of values may be, its all voluntary that you chose to adopt it.

Being religious is voluntary. Being vegan is voluntary. Protecting kids from molestation is voluntary. 

All your definitions do is explain what contracts are. Contracts are VOLUNTARILY agreed upon and even then people can renege the terms stated in the face of a consequence or penalty. If they want to face that penalty, then its on them, but they have a CHOICE to face that consequence or societal expectation of what happens if you don't fulfill that prior choice. 

A society CHOOSES what it will honor and value. 

There is no such thing as an objective obligation, only choices. 

Wow dude.  Wow.

You're crazy.

 

[solarius49]

Its funny because "obligation" has existed for thousands of years until Putty decided a couple hours ago that it doesnt exist anymore

What is an obligation?



If you're just going to re-word the concept of "choice" then don't bother. 

I actually believe the dictionary definition has been posted by myself and somebody else in this thread.

Obligations as defined in those definitions relate to choices being made.

 

So the dictionary defined it wrong?

You misused what the dictionary was saying. 

no.....I copied and pasted what the dictionary said, verbatim. So once again, you're saying the dictionary definition of the word "obligation" is incorrect?

 

[futuremd]

Its funny because "obligation" has existed for thousands of years until Putty decided a couple hours ago that it doesnt exist anymore

What is an obligation?



If you're just going to re-word the concept of "choice" then don't bother. 

I actually believe the dictionary definition has been posted by myself and somebody else in this thread.

Obligations as defined in those definitions relate to choices being made.

 

So the dictionary defined it wrong?

You misused what the dictionary was saying. 

no.....I copied and pasted what the dictionary said, verbatim. So once again, you're saying the dictionary definition of the word "obligation" is incorrect?

 Peep the definitions. They say things you're binded to by law...but are you binded to those laws by choice or do you fear consequences?

You're not binded by anything you don't choose to be binded to. 

If I say, you're obligated to obey the law, are you then prohibitively binded to obey the law or do you choose to obey the law?

 

[goldenchild9]

Contract. and nothing Future has stated is really a contract. Maybe social contract but that kinda follows your free will analogy.

Atlas shrugged...we get it.

The discussion is about social/cultural contracts and norms.

Not absolutes.

 

[futuremd]

Contract. and nothing Future has stated is really a contract. Maybe social contract but that kinda follows your free will analogy.

Atlas shrugged...we get it.

The discussion is about social/cultural contracts and norms.

Not absolutes.

I'm not Ayn Rand, I like doing things because it increases the chances that others will return the favor. However I'm not naive enough to think that people innately always owe me something.

Altruism allows society to thrive, but altruism is in itself not an automatic response to how things occur. 

I choose to treat others "well" and to be "nice" and to "play along" with the game in the hopes that we all live lives that allow us to slide by each other with as little friction as others. 

However, we are not obligated to do that in and of ourselves.

Its all a choice. 

 

[goldenchild9]

This whole obligation argument is another FutureMD red herring. I said that people like Jay have the "onus to be a strong voice for their people."

He turned it into a silly discussion about the obligation of sons to their mothers, of mothers to feed their children and the a general redefinition of the word obligation.

 

[rko2004]

FutureMD. You seem to be fairly smart, where did all these words and definitions arise from man? Excuse me I'm dense.

This whole obligation argument is another FutureMD red herring. I said that people like Jay have the "onus to be a strong voice for their people."

He turned it into a silly discussion about the obligation of sons to their mothers, of mothers to feed their children and the a general redefinition of the word obligation.

But of course. Did you expect anything different. Someone find that Meth quote. Explain things to a T.

 

[futuremd]

This whole obligation argument is another FutureMD red herring. I said that people like Jay have the "onus to be a strong voice for their people."

He turned it into a silly discussion about the obligation of sons to their mothers, of mothers to feed their children and the a general redefinition of the word obligation.

So whats the difference? 

Its a choice. 

Jay-Z chooses not to. He doesn't have to. 

 

[goldenchild9]

I'm not Ayn Rand, I like doing things because it increases the chances that others will return the favor. However I'm not naive enough to think that people innately always owe me something.

Altruism allows society to thrive, but altruism is in itself not an automatic response to how things occur. 

I choose to treat others "well" and to be "nice" and to "play along" with the game in the hopes that we all live lives that allow us to slide by each other with as little friction as others. 

However, we are not obligated to do that in and of ourselves.

Its all a choice. 

I wasn't referring to you. That was directed at Gymbybryant

No one said that it altruism should be automatic either.

The discussion is whether high profile minorities, in this case Jay-Z and Beyonce, should wield their influence and resource to be more socially progressive.

Lets frame the discussion correctly.

 

[futuremd]

I'm not Ayn Rand, I like doing things because it increases the chances that others will return the favor. However I'm not naive enough to think that people innately always owe me something.

Altruism allows society to thrive, but altruism is in itself not an automatic response to how things occur. 

I choose to treat others "well" and to be "nice" and to "play along" with the game in the hopes that we all live lives that allow us to slide by each other with as little friction as others. 

However, we are not obligated to do that in and of ourselves.

Its all a choice. 

I wasn't referring to you. That was directed at Gymbybryant

No one said that it altruism should be automatic either.

The discussion is whether high profile minorities, in this case Jay-Z and Beyonce, should wield their influence and resource to be more socially progressive.

Lets frame the discussion correctly.

No. 

 

[goldenchild9]

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Harry Belafonte and others disagree. They are entitled to their opinion as well.

 

[betweenthebars]

I have a question.  Related to the topic though not specifically involving it.

Does anyone feel it's the (what can be perceived as) negative actions of celebrities that are generally looked at as having an influence on youth/culture?

Glorifying violence and/or drug dealing, materialism, excessive drinking & drug use, womanizing or having multiple children out of wedlock, 2 month long weddings, tattoos everywhere.

If there was a real, concentrated movement to improve, focused on positivity and change, though there may be some benefit, would it really have the same impact that these instantly gratifying things have?

 

[mugen81]

U damn right I said older black people, they left homes fatherless, we always marching and doing kubya ******** and never acting, we didn't fight when cops and whites busted our *****, all we ever did was turn the other cheek and run, when young positive black people try to take over the reigns in any of our groups, our voices go in unheard, tavis smiley and Cornell west used to speak from my thoughts but them ****** turned turn coat and got real uncle to mush with their statements, there Is a big void between generations and if u think that's not true then ****** u are just as post as this damn hippies saying racism is over because we have a black president. Yeah Jim brown, Harry bellefonte, Kareem Abdul jabbar, we're activist but where are they at now, what they doin. It disgust people that we as a people ad so quick to point fingers and do all this talking but we never take a stand for ourselves, we don't spend in our own communities, we never take a stand when it comes to gettin our heads busted, only time our leaders come out is to get shine, we are the most self loathing, lookIng for a hand out, blame mutha****** victims out here. I don't look to j****, ye, or beyond to represent me or save me , I look at myself and say how can I help the next black man out but **** it doIng that I ask myself is he going to hurt me, destro my family, etc... U ****** might be too young but Charles Barkley said it best I am not a role model. We need to start looking ourselves in the mirror, our elders never taught us anything about us except don't make a white man mad or else, yes they failed us, but **** ain't going to ever change because we too damn lazy to stop taking the **** and start dicking these mutha****as back, so we will keep letting them pollute our minds with self hate, black men and women ain't **** ****, blah, blah, blah. Stop looking for a entertainer/politician to save your life, the font give a **** about us and Harry bellefonte damn sure doesn't care about any of our punk *****, that ***** just waiting to die. Also I throw bill Cosby in there, totally agree with everything he has said up to the point of the tray on Martin shooting, we always condemn ourselves but we never take it to the people that have sold us out( our whole culture) made profit,set up shop in our neighborhoods. Black people are brainwashed and dead, I really hope I see the day when we recognize our potential and start supporting ourselves and stop looking for white, Hispanic, Asian love. The last era that we had was 89-95 and our elders didn't help us fight then and damn sure ain't helping us fight now, they got money, married a white *****, lied, cheated on the black women that held them down, and now sit on a thrown of self righteousness to make these cracked feel good because that elected a black( they so want to kill) in office. Stop drinking the ******g look aid, dumb *** ****** and wake up

 

[futuremd]

I have a question.  Related to the topic though not specifically involving it.

Does anyone feel it's the (what can be perceived as) negative actions of celebrities that are generally looked at as having an influence on youth/culture?

Glorifying violence and/or drug dealing, materialism, excessive drinking & drug use, womanizing or having multiple children out of wedlock, 2 month long weddings, tattoos everywhere.

If there was a real, concentrated movement to improve, focused on positivity and change, though there may be some benefit, would it really have the same impact that these instantly gratifying things have?

There will always be a scapegoat.

Look how they treated rock and roll stars of the 70s and 80s. Now when the come on TV people go into this almost "spiritual" gaze upon their personal idols...the same ones THEIR parents derided as being the bane of society. 

The methods for real power and real change dont come through happy songs. They come through learning to be autonomous, learning how to make money and controlling others. Learning to embrace politics. Learning to pursue education in things besides communication degrees but rather things that give you valuable and pliable SKILLS. All those things they don't talk about.

But all we ever hear is about media. Media isn't THAT serious in the grand scheme of things. It helps to convey messages, absolutely, but it doesn't speak on the extent of the infrastructure of society at large and how things allow that media to manifest in its present form. 

For example, what if we taught people how to control the components of media, rather than just being in front of the screen...imagine those outcomes. 

You're not going to get anywhere talking about Beyonce and Jay-Z. 

Again, nothing to take away from Belafonte. I love that dude...but he just threw a rock at an easy target and left you all out to dry. Consider this. What have we gained from this discussion? 

Absolutely nothing. Belafonte finds it easier to chastise those who "don't do enough" (which is ridiculous considering all they actually do) instead of supporting and hailing those who do what he things "do enough." 

 

[goldenchild9]

If Ben Carson remained quiet on the subject of race...I would have never been able to relate to him and covet a career in the neurosciences.

If Reginald Lewis didn't write "Why should white guys have all the fun" and provide context for his ascension to being a Black Billionaire, I probably wouldn't be able to contextualize a proper perspective on being black and reaching such lofty heights in a system dominated by White men.

If Muhammad Ali didn't stand up for downtrodden people in general, popular culture would be very different.

We are regressing as a people due to this me, myself and I ideology. We have always been a collective people and now those with positions of power are using it to elevate only themselves, causing a vacuum in leadership and misguided generation.

 

[goldenchild9]

I have a question.  Related to the topic though not specifically involving it.

Does anyone feel it's the (what can be perceived as) negative actions of celebrities that are generally looked at as having an influence on youth/culture?
Glorifying violence and/or drug dealing, materialism, excessive drinking & drug use, womanizing or having multiple children out of wedlock, 2 month long weddings, tattoos everywhere.

If there was a real, concentrated movement to improve, focused on positivity and change, though there may be some benefit, would it really have the same impact that these instantly gratifying things have?

It definitely would.

 

[futuremd]

If Ben Carson remained quiet on the subject of race...I would have never been able to relate to him and covet a career in the neurosciences.

If Reginald Lewis didn't write "Why should white guys have all the fun" and provide context for his ascension to being a Black Billionaire, I probably wouldn't be able to contextualize a proper perspective on being black and reaching such lofty heights in a system dominated by White men.

If Muhammad Ali didn't stand up for downtrodden people in general, popular culture would be very different.

We are regressing as a people due to this me, myself and I ideology. We have always been a collective people and now those with positions of power are using it to elevate only themselves, causing a vacuum in leadership and misguided generation.

I don't know if you saw what I said earlier, but I don't disagree with you.

There is nothing wrong with speaking out, but the manner in which you do it can help you or in this case, hurt you.

Belafonte loses because WE as a people don't gain ANYTHING by challenging those who dont do enough. Jay-Z is a successful black man (whatever that means). Period. Undeniable.

How do we as a "people" or "culture" win if we have the old guard talking crazy about someone who is revered? 

We gain something when he champions those who actually DO the things he wants to see. 

If someone bigger than you isn't doing what you want, you don't win him over by shooting him down. You make your own movement and show others how its done...THEN Jay-Z will get the message to associate with Belafonte. 

Now Jay-Z and Belafonte probably won't ever collab on anything. All because Belafonte was focused on shooting others down. 

Don't talk down on those who aren't doing enough. Praise the ones who are. That way, when the movement gets bigger, those who weren't doing enough will feel more INTRINSICALLY compelled to join in. They can't feel that deep and visceral connection if you're going to guilt them into supporting you. 

 

[goldenchild9]

There will always be a scapegoat.

[if IE]><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="390" /><![endif]


Look how they treated rock and roll stars of the 70s and 80s. Now when the come on TV people go into this almost "spiritual" gaze upon their personal idols...the same ones THEIR parents derided as being the bane of society. 


The methods for real power and real change dont come through happy songs. They come through learning to be autonomous, learning how to make money and controlling others. Learning to embrace politics. Learning to pursue education in things besides communication degrees but rather things that give you valuable and pliable SKILLS. All those things they don't talk about.

But all we ever hear is about media. Media isn't THAT serious in the grand scheme of things. It helps to convey messages, absolutely, but it doesn't speak on the extent of the infrastructure of society at large and how things allow that media to manifest in its present form. 

For example, what if we taught people how to control the components of media, rather than just being in front of the screen...imagine those outcomes. 

You're not going to get anywhere talking about Beyonce and Jay-Z. 

Again, nothing to take away from Belafonte. I love that dude...but he just threw a rock at an easy target and left you all out to dry. Consider this. What have we gained from this discussion? 

Absolutely nothing. Belafonte finds it easier to chastise those who "don't do enough" (which is ridiculous considering all they actually do) instead of supporting and hailing those who do what he things "do enough." 

You contradicted yourself in the opening of that post.

People idolize celebrities...but media isn't that important?

The media molds the minds of the people and we are living in the media age. It's more important now than ever.

And the second part of your post is my beef with Jay. He doesn't have to be Malcolm X or Talib Kweli but he takes doesn't try at all except when its for show.

Why not create a proudly independent distribution company or help fix the infrastructure in his hood (like T.I. does), why not start up a ball league or support a local tournament, why not build a school, a community studio or a gym, why not be a vocal Black business leader.

The most independent thing he probably promotes is liquor and I think that's owned by someone else as well.

No he doesn't have to do any of those things but if people like him with resources don't give back o his people, no one will.

 

[Master Zik]

Harry should probably look in to who he's calling out. I'd never expect Jay-Z or Beyonce to step up and be socially responsible. He probably just saw that they're rich, famous, and black so they should be more active and relevant in that arena but nah it's Jay-Z, you need to look to someone more responsible than that.

I think that was his point. Why dont we expect jay and beyonce to be voices. Somebody that wields the influence that he does, should use it to make people (particularly in the black community) more aware in a sense.

Now people are saying maybe they do in private etc. Thats ok for you and me, but when you can reach alot more people its a difference.

Cuz of who Jay is, that's why. You can't look at someone because their rich, famous and black and expect them to be the type of ppl that want to do good for others.

As someone else has already mentioned in here Jay still tends to rap about his drug dealing days. He's aware of his influence but that doesn't mean he has to accept being a role model or be responsible for his influence. If anything dude has shown to be consistently irresponsible in that capacity. So all calling him out would do is not put him on the spot forcing him to change but simply ignore it and keep making money.

To me there's a huge problem where you're looking for ppl that are in a certain position to do these things for you instead of looking for the ppl with the right qualities to effectively do these things.

 

[goldenchild9]

I don't know if you saw what I said earlier, but I don't disagree with you.

There is nothing wrong with speaking out, but the manner in which you do it can help you or in this case, hurt you.

Belafonte loses because WE as a people don't gain ANYTHING by challenging those who dont do enough. Jay-Z is a successful black man (whatever that means). Period. Undeniable.

How do we as a "people" or "culture" win if we have the old guard talking crazy about someone who is revered? 

We gain something when he champions those who actually DO the things he wants to see. 

If someone bigger than you isn't doing what you want, you don't win him over by shooting him down. You make your own movement and show others how its done...THEN Jay-Z will get the message to associate with Belafonte. 

Now Jay-Z and Belafonte probably won't ever collab on anything. All because Belafonte was focused on shooting others down. 

Don't talk down on those who aren't doing enough. Praise the ones who are. That way, when the movement gets bigger, those who weren't doing enough will feel more INTRINSICALLY compelled to join in. They can't feel that deep and visceral connection if you're going to guilt them into supporting you. 

He was asked about minorities in Hollywood though, there aren't very many of them with power choosing to make a positive impact.

Who should he have applauded, Tyler Perry?

Belafonte already had his movement and put in his work, now he's looking at the new generation , observing them drop the ball and he's rightfully frustrated.

 

[futuremd]

There will always be a scapegoat.



[if IE]><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="390" /><![endif]


Look how they treated rock and roll stars of the 70s and 80s. Now when the come on TV people go into this almost "spiritual" gaze upon their personal idols...the same ones THEIR parents derided as being the bane of society. 


The methods for real power and real change dont come through happy songs. They come through learning to be autonomous, learning how to make money and controlling others. Learning to embrace politics. Learning to pursue education in things besides communication degrees but rather things that give you valuable and pliable SKILLS. All those things they don't talk about.

But all we ever hear is about media. Media isn't THAT serious in the grand scheme of things. It helps to convey messages, absolutely, but it doesn't speak on the extent of the infrastructure of society at large and how things allow that media to manifest in its present form. 

For example, what if we taught people how to control the components of media, rather than just being in front of the screen...imagine those outcomes. 

You're not going to get anywhere talking about Beyonce and Jay-Z. 

Again, nothing to take away from Belafonte. I love that dude...but he just threw a rock at an easy target and left you all out to dry. Consider this. What have we gained from this discussion? 

Absolutely nothing. Belafonte finds it easier to chastise those who "don't do enough" (which is ridiculous considering all they actually do) instead of supporting and hailing those who do what he things "do enough." 

You contradicted yourself in the opening of that post.

People idolize celebrities...but media isn't that important?

NO.

NO. 

NO.

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the same way people used to idolize THEIR favorite artists in past decades and their parents rerided them, its the same way that people now will find fault with mass music media and criticisms of it. 

The media molds the minds of the people and we are living in the media age. It's more important now than ever.
 

I never doubted that, but autonomy doesn't come from trying to escape it, but manipulating it. 

And the second part of your post is my beef with Jay. He doesn't have to be Malcolm X or Talib Kweli but he takes doesn't try at all except when its for show.

Why not create a proudly independent distribution company or help fix the infrastructure in his hood (like T.I. does), why not start up a ball league or support a local tournament, why not build a school, a community studio or a gym, why not be a vocal Black business leader.

The most independent thing he probably promotes is liquor and I think that's owned by someone else as well.

No he doesn't have to do any of those things but if people like him with resources don't give back o his people, no one will.

I guess you never heard about the deal between J-Prince, Jay-Z, and Irv, huh? 

And btw, again, all you're saying is what you WANT him to do...not what he is going to do, or rather what you're owed.