Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Most did not attack officers
Irrelevant, see my comments to GP
This is logic 101 and you are failing it's most basic test. If you want to present a rational argument provide data or examples of individuals who were unfairly prosecuted and then we can begin to have a discussion.Not falling for that because I will start listing them and then you will lie and say those are the exceptions to the rule.
Not falling for the idea of backing up your claim with facts? Interesting argument.
See my earlier discission with GP. You don't need to list anything, in fact I would reject a list because then all you will do is force me into a game of whack-a-mole where I show one example to be invalid so you just move on to the next. What I ask is that you stand by your claim if I'm going to engage in it, which means show actual data or choose a legitimate example that you can then tie to a bigger picture. That's not just about presenting a convincing argument, that's the bare minimum of what it needed to rationally justify your claim. If you haven't done that already then it's no wonder you believe the nonsense you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the people who beat up police officers are the victims,Did 1500 people beat up police officers on Jan 6?
Irrelevant to the conversation. The issue here is the fact that the president of the United States just pardoned people who committed political violence on his behalf. The fact that they did so against police officers just puts the cherry on top being that the people excusing this are the same people whose literal slogan is "back the blue".
What this shows is how deeply unserious you and all your MAGA ilk are and what loathsome hypocrites you all are. So, naturally, being that you can't defend this nonsense you do everything you can to deflect by talking about the BLM riots who no serious person one on the left defends including myself, or you point to the people who did not commit violence as if that has anything to do with this. It's all deflection because you are fundamentally dishonest.
How many years in prison should you get for throwing a rock at a police officer?
You tell me, since you are suddenly an advocate for unfair treatment of prisoners. I wonder when incarcerated black people will get the same consideration. Funny how the "law and order" crowd suddenly doesn't think attacking police officers is a big deal when MAGA does it.
After Biden's bullshit the last 2 weeks, there are only a handful of Americans left that think the Justice Dept was not politically weaponized.
Because propaganda works.
Maybe don't try to weaponize the DOJ next time and issue preemptive pardons for your family and pals.
Maybe don't elect a president who had said publicly many many times that it would be ok for him to go after his political opponents and who then nominates a man who has said on camera that he will use the power of government to go after Trump's political rivals and published an enemies hitlist to be the next FBI director.
It never ceases to amaze me how MAGA loves to pretend that the actions of democrats took place in a vacuum, as if it were not a direct reaction to the horrid things Trump and his minions have done. That's like walking up to someone on the street and slapping them, only to later complain about how horrible they are for hitting you back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I rarely listen to people in real life, because they mostly talk nonsense which I am not interested in absorbing.
Then you have no business criticizing them.
And not for nothing, it's kind of an odd choice for someone not interested in what others have to say to spend their time on a debate site responding to people you disagree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
No one thinks that. You are, as usual, inventing your own opposition because you have no rational defense of your horrid position.That's what the conclusion of your beliefs are.
No, that's what the conclusion of your own imagination amounts to. Everything you wrote in your response demonstrates as I have repeatedly pointed out to you that you are arguing with yourself. Pay attention.
So your claim is 1500 people physically beat up cops that day?
No, my claim is that the 1500 people he pardoned includes the violent offenders. And regardless of how many of them were violent, the fact is that this was a decision Trump made. A fully aware, fully conscious decision... to pardon people who beat up police officers for doing their jobs.
If you were intellectually honest you would not be celebrating this, but unfortunately you're not.
So limit the pardon to them, but he didn't. I wonder why.What did they do? Show up to a protest? There are videos of cops letting people into the capital so they went into a building that was literally unlocked for them?
There were literally thousands of them, they didn't all do the same thing which is why they didn't all get the same outcome.
This is logic 101 and you are failing it's most basic test. If you want to present a rational argument provide data or examples of individuals who were unfairly prosecuted and then we can begin to have a discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The people had a referendum on Jan 6 last election
I thought they voted for Trump because they wanted to lower the price of eggs? Or was it about immigration? Or wasn't it about wokeism? Sense like whatever narrative is convenient in the moment, that's what it was.
Back on earth one, we recognize that the overwhelming majority oppose pardons for the J6 convicts, but people prioritized other things.
They chose to side with the victims instead of the tyrants.
So the people who beat up police officers are the victims, and the people who prosecuted them are tyrants? Yeah, that sounds about right in MAGAville.
That 5 when you asked for 1 instance.
I asked for one for a reason. I'm not interested in your Chatgpt recital, I'm not interested in your flood of BS comparisons. Cite one comparable example that you are prepared to stand by. Not interested in your little game where you list multiple examples so that when one gets knocked down you just run to the next one.
And regardless of whether you have any legitimate examples (as if any example of a prosecutor purposefully failing to prosecute a BLM rioter could ever be comparable to a presidential pardon), let's also not pretend that two wrongs make a right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Nobody believes that.Maybe you just dont talk to many people.
Maybe you're just not listening
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Now people live in some delusion that law punishes every crime, and that it even does so proportionally and in a just way.
Nobody believes that.
The law will never be applied equally to all so long as the system is run by human beings. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
What matters and what we can control is that we enforce the law as equally as we can. We will never catch every law breaker and there will always be difficult and nuanced questions at the heart of our charging and convicting decisions, all we can do is come up with the best solutions humanly possible, which means starting off with the fundamental values our system is built on. That's what's missing with regards to Trump's pardons, that's the difference here between this and all the other false equivalences we will see over the coming days and weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Literally treated different than the BLM protestors who actually caused over 100 deaths.
Whataboutism... Gee, didn't see that coming.
Show me one BLM protester who provably committed violence against police officers and was let free.
Mostly non violent people arrested.
So limit the pardon to them, but he didn't. I wonder why.
You are a piece of shit to think America should lock up conservative protestors but let BLM rioters loot businesses, burn down buildings and literally murder people
No one thinks that. You are, as usual, inventing your own opposition because you have no rational defense of your horrid position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That's a little too simple and doesn't really state a policy position.
I wasn't trying to state a policy position, I was as I said, keeping it really simple.
All policy positions come from some philisophical baseline, I find it more productive to address that. To start with policy positions and work backwards when you already know you disagree with the person you're talking to seems unproductive.
So do you disagree with anything I said in my last post? That's where the real conversation is, everything else comes from those basic ideas and presumptions.
But if you really want to know, I support background checks, gun safety training requirements, banning assault weapons, banning extended magazines, and strongly oppose permitless carry, to name a few.
What about addressing the root issues?
It's not an either/or. Addressing gun violence doesn't stop us from addressing root causes. But a major part of the problem here and one of the things that is so contradictory about the political right is that the root causes are often personal/cultural. Fatherless homes as an example... How do you address that through government? And this is the contradiction; the political right peaches freedom and small government, but then suggest it's government's job to fix America's culture. Those are mutually exclusive positions.
A perfect example of this comes up everytime there's a gun tragedy. The left focuses on guns, the right focuses on mental health. Ok, but which side has actually made proposals to deal with mental health? Not the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I do my best to understand and you don't give me enough credit.
I would love to, but you haven't shown you deserve any. Everytime I interact with you you strawman the hell out of me to the pointI find myself wondering who are you talking to?
Notice how I even tried to get you to give an argument for guns control by bringing up gun bans but you instead said "no liberal wants a gun bans"
Guns weren't the topic, I find that one of the most valuable abilities in intellectual conversation is to keep the conversation on topic. But if this is really where you want it to go...
Bro then say what you believe so we have something to discuss.
I'll keep this really simple... More guns = more gun violence. Therefore, the more prevalent guns are the more likely each of us are to get shot.
This is not to say there will be less violence, it means that when violence does break out it will be less likely to end in death, since that is what guns are designed to cause.
Ultimately, what I believe is that we should apply the same logic to guns as we do anything else in life. If any other product caused the amount of injuries and death in our society, we would regulate the hell out of it. We would do whatever it takes to ensure people are safe. And in so doing, we would carefully balance the safety risks posed with the benefits it brings. We do this with everything else in life, but not guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So to summarize, you thought banning guns would stop the violence, is that correct?Yes that's how retarded I was
Then that's a perfect example of the problem. I've never heard anyone on the left who's given the issue more than 3 seconds of thought suggest something so ridiculous.
This demonstrates exactly what I've been saying; you were at one time, a moron on political issues, and at that time you were on the left. So now you just think everyone on the left is as much of a moron as you were and it's completely inhibited your ability to absorb what anyone on the left is actually saying because all you're doing is projecting your former self.
The next question I have is, do you care whether your understanding of actual liberals and left wing ideology is accurate, or are you just more comfortable believing we are all as dumb as you once were?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
For guns I just thought guns violence was a problem and my belief at the time was that government existed to fix problems. When I formed this belief I was kind of watching the LA riots on t.v. on a daily basis, and my thoughts wereHey all this violence is bad. Maybe we just don't have violence.
So to summarize, you thought banning guns would stop the violence, is that correct?
Also yes I was a top 5 debaters on DDO and I argued against those positions.
What was your screen name?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You rarely even offer a premise for your beliefs more than orange man bad so leftism good
This is yet more proof that you don't read. I go far, far more into detail than any right winger on this site and probably more so than anyone on this site when it comes to explaining why I believe what I believe. This is yet another example of why you are so unserious to talk to.
Some things I advocates for as a leftist1. Ban cigarettes2. Ban all guns3. Give the homeless free housesIt's just generally childish thinking that focuses on addressing the symptoms of a problem and not the root of it.
Most leftists don't advocate for any of these positions, so once again you show that your issue is actually with yourself not the people you are interacting with.
Let's look closer at point 2. Why did you want to ban all guns? What problem did you identify and why did you think your proposal would solve it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So you have offspring and are old enough to have seen liberalism decay this society and destroy others and you are like "yep let's teach kids to be trannies innschool and give everyone free shit". Grow up
For someone who claims to have been a liberal you sure have a toddler level right wing understanding of what the left is saying.
I really think you should see a therapist, not being facetious. My truly honest guess is that you hate your younger self and have concentrated that hatred on the liberal views you bought into during that period, and now you're projecting that into anyone you see as left wing. There's no reason why someone who spends so much of his time arguing politics could be so brazenly ignorant of what drives other side, especially when claiming to have come from that side.
lol Dunning-Kruger epitomized.Bro do you want to take an IQ test? I will let you choose the type and we can do them live in discord with people watching.
It's 135, and no I'm not interested in your little childish spectacle. But thanks for demonstrating my point. IQ only measures certain specific cognitive abilities, reason is more expansive than that so having an IQ test is not enough to qualify your inflated sense of self.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Default positions are starting points, they're the positions we take in the absence of evidence for or against the proposition.
There is no absence of evidence that elections exist, there is however a remarkable absence of evidence that widespread fraud is taking place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Only on the MAGA right could "I just start kissing... I don't even wait" = "they gave consent".You didn't use the word let in this sentence. You need visible cues for consent. Like a head lean, pursuing of the lips etc and then that would mean they are letting you walk up and just kiss them.The "not stop you" interpretation of the word is a common misnomer and we know it's not accurate here.
This is so incredibly stupid. Not only was there nothing in the recording to suggest that "they let you do it" meant "they gave me visual cues that doing what I wanted was ok with them", or the fact that he literally preceded that sentence with "I don't even wait" (wait for what exactly???)...
It's also just a batshit ignorant understanding of human nature. No one expects when meeting a celebrity that they're going to walk up to you and just start kissing you or grabbing you by your pussy. That's the kind of thing that takes a few moments to process, you cannot consent to something when you don't even realize what's happening to you. What is far, far more likely is that a woman will freeze as they try to process what's happening. That's basic common sense and nearly every story told by a woman who's even been assaulted will tell you a similar story.
You should watch the Network. It really was meant for people like you who get their views, style, culture etc. from the TV.
I get my views from talking to people in real life. You might want to try it.
This is why you don't debate I believe.
Odd turn, but sure whatever. I have done 3 debates here, I did about 50 of them on DDO. I don't do more now because I'm married and a father so I have other things to do when I get home. About 90% of my posts are written on a subway train with little to no service, so I'm reluctant to put in the time commitment, otherwise I'd love to do more.
Nearly everyone here is inferior in their reasoning to me.
lol Dunning-Kruger epitomized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Negative assertions do not carry a burden of proof.
Wrong – any and all assertions carry a burden of proof. You are confusing different things.
Asserting X as fact is different from asserting X as the default position. The former requires evidentiary support. The latter is asserted as the result following basic principles of logic.
“X does not exist” is always the default position because the alternative is to accept that “X does exist” without evidence, to do so while staying consistent would lead to all kinds of absurdities, like accepting mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously.
But a default position is not an assertion of fact, it is a position taken only out of practical necessity. We have to live our lives daily in accordance with some baseline of accepted reality so taking a position on questions like these are not avoidable, thus we take the position that allows us to live in accordance with basic principles of logic.
An assertion of fact is completely different. That means you have assessed the claim and have valid reason to draw a definitive conclusion, not merely a position taken out of necessity. That is a logical leap and justification for that leap is required in any rational conversation. That’s called a burden of proof.
"We live in a universe that does not contain a flying spaghetti monster."The only part of that which is a positive assertion is "we live in a universe", that is the only part which carries a burden of proof.
This is a nothing more than a dishonest game of semantics. Let's try phrasing it this way:
“We live in a Flying Spaghetti Monster-less universe”.
Same exact claim but harder to hand waive away. The claim is a reality based description of the universe we live in, that's its point. Describing the universe requires evidentiary support, that's called a burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There is no flying spaghetti monster.
We live in a universe that does not contain a flying spaghetti monster.
Same claim, doesn't matter how you phrase it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Missed this because I wasn't tagged, but since I was bored...
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.Common misconception. Burden of proof is always on the positive claim.
Every claim is a positive claim. To make a claim is to assert a truism about reality. If I said "god does not exist" I am asserting that we live in a godless universe. That claim does not get a pass because I phrased it as a negative.
B: There is no evidence for a flying spaghetti monster. I will not obey the pasta commandments.A: You said it, you prove it. Until you meet your burden of proof you must obey the pasta commandments.If we followed your absurd "whoever talks first" rule then you would say that A is correct.
Complete strawman. First of all, your hypothetical dialog misses on what the comparable claims would be. "There is no evidence" does not mean "the FSM doesn't exist". The claim in that case pertains only to the evidence, which is itself a colloquialism. "There is no evidence" simply means *we* do not have any evidence, to which the burden of proof is satisfied by the inability of anyone in the conversation to provide it.
Second, you're comparing my assertion that election results should be accepted as accurate with the position "a god (FSM) exists". This is wrong because existence is never the default position, meanwhile my position that the results should be accepted is the default position.
The default position is to accept what someone tells you as their understood reality. That means it is only when you have a reason to believe someone is not telling you the truth that you presume otherwise. This is the default position because if it were not, you would be in a position where every single time someone tells you something, even if it's only "my name is..." you would need evidentiary support before accepting any of it. That's absurd.
So when a voting precinct says we have counted the votes and here's the total... That qualifies as a mundane claim which does not require evidentiary support before the rational position of any individual is to accept that as their vote total.
It's the job of governments trying to be a democracy to prove elections happened
If you need proof that the election happened, we can end this conversation right here cause you belong in a nursing home.
What I think you were trying to say that it's the government's job to prove the alleged victor is the actual victor, which is terribly wrong. It's not "the government" making an assertion that Candidate X won the election, that's the mathmatical conclusion of the vote tallies reported by all of the individual precincts. So really your claim is 'it's the job of all the precincts to prove that their vote tallies are what they say they are'. This is reasonable in terms of the system that we have, it is a ridiculous demand from the standpoint of a rational individual weighing whether they should have confidence in the results.
When the left wing candidate wins and you claim we should not accept that result on the basis of fraud, your claim logically necessitates that the left cheated more than the right.That is correct, but that doesn't mean I have to prove it to say the election is untrustworthy.If I am presented with a fork in the road and somebody flips a coin, I can say that is an untrustworthy way to determine which path is correct.You are saying that if it the coin happens to be biased to tails (and that meant left) then it is the mechanism of decision is biased towards the left.
Election cheating is not a coin flip. If there are 5k fraudulent votes, our choices are not (A) it was all democrats, or (B) it was all republicans. Math matters, and we know that neither side has a monopoly on election cheating.
no one should be asked to obey elections where fraud could have changed the outcome
Again, fraud *could* always change the outcome. We don't operate on possibility, we operate on probability/plausibility. You ignore the default position and assert plausibility based on nothing but your own personal distrust of government. You're entitled to that, but don't mistake that for holding a rational position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Correct"They let you do it"Let = allow = consent
Only on the MAGA right could "I just start kissing... I don't even wait" = "they gave consent".
It isn't just that this is a blatant disregard for basic English, it's also that the context of this conversation does not in any way support your fantasy interpretation. "They let you do it" does not mean "they said sure go ahead". It means they won't stop you. Not stopping someone =/= consent.
This is what being in a cult looks like, it's a place where basic common sense need not apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump said if you are rich and famous you can just grab a pussy without asking,Not quite. He said women will allow (give consent) you to grab then by the pussy.
Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Wrong again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Again, no one said gangs are not a problem. You continue to argue with your own imagination.
If you actually cared about steelmanning anyone's position you would not need to be told this repeatedly. When I pointed this out initially you asked why that wasn't addressed regardless of the fact that it was a strawman at the outset. Steelmanning is the opposite of that, the whole idea is that you ask these questions to yourself first not place the burden on anyone else to ask and answer it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Please tell me what you took from the following quote. Maybe I am too autistic to see it, but I also message scaramucci for Clarification so let me check my messages real quick to see if he clarified“Lay off the gas on politics a little bit because these people could hurt you.""No need for you to get hurt. You're doing so well in your life."
My god dude.
There are more ways to hurt someone than physically, and he prefaced all of his statements by talking about the culture in Washington DC. So unless you think inner DC is all about gangs breaking each others legs, he obviously was not eluding to violence.
And beyond that point, even if you reject everything I just said it doesn't come close to justifying your claim that Democratic leaders are threatening to kill Elon Musk. Last I checked Scaramouche is not a democratic leader and he said absolutely nothing about murder. This post, like most of your posts just made up hysteria.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Scaramouche who has been campaigning for Harris has openly threatened to murder Elon Musk if he doesn't play ball with the deep state
Is this supposed to be a joke? Cause there's no way you listened to your video and took that away from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Gangs in America exist. Everyone knows this. No one is pretending they don't, no one is pretending it's not an issue.Then why say that it's not an issue when the right brings it up and instead nitpicking over obvious hyperbole and try to downplay the problem?
If you're making a claim that's just made up nonsense, I'm going to call you out for spreading made up nonsense. It's not my responsibility to figure out what you're really trying to argue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Liberals - being Gay is okayAlso liberals- J Edgar Hoover was a bad person because he was gayWhy are you guys like this?
Don't know, ask the people who are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What the hell do you think takeover means?
It certainly doesn't mean a gang intrusion into one apartment and subsequent kidnapping.
Also who is closer to the truth even if you were stupid enough to take that literally. Those claiming gang takeovers (which honestly just means over run in common parlance) or the media and the left saying Denver didn't have gang problems?
Both of your made up claims are far from the truth. The difference is that one of these claims *is* being made by the right while the other claim isn't being made by anyone on the left.
Gangs in America exist. Everyone knows this. No one is pretending they don't, no one is pretending it's not an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Is it really 'skin color?
For some it is but that wasn't my point. You are right that is less about race and more about "otherism". When the Irish came over everyone pretty much looked alike so the qualifications for being an other were just far less apparent.
That's all irrelevant though to what I was talking about, I just used the term brown people to illustrate who was being singled out as the other in this scenario. The motivations is another discission, the point is that this is the only substantive issue that unites the maga right. Everything else is either culture war nonsense or a cult of personality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Just 6 months ago the media took JD Vance and Trump through the ringer claiming they lied about apartments being taken over in Colorado.Today 16 people were arrested due to an apartment takeover. https://www.denverpost.com/2024/12/18/aurora-tren-de-aragua-gang-kidnapping-torture-edge-lowry-ice-custody/
No they weren't, and your own article says that (requires paid subscription and I already backed out so I can't quote it, but you should really read your own source). They were arrested for a home invasion and a kidnapping.
Before conservatives were mocked for saying Denver had some gang related problems,
That's not what they said, they were mocked for lying about a "gang takeover" of an apartment complex.
So does anyone want to argue these 16 men were innocent and that Denver is a a crime free liberal utopia?
No, because no one is making that claim. This is right wing reimagination of what the left is pointing out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Simply put, most Trump supporters recognize he has questionable character traits, and support him because they like his policies.
They support him because he hates the same people he does (brown people, trans people, etc.). It has little to nothing to do with policies because Trump doesn't have any. His two big promises are to round up 10-12 million illegals and kick them out, and to tariff the hell out of everything, two things every economist says will result in the opposite of what Trump's voters say they wanted and most Trump voters even acknowledge would be terrible, but they also don't think he's going to do it.
When you're voting for someone you do not think will do the very things he campaigned on, you cannot pretend your vote is based on policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That is how you add up white privilege.
It's called logic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh no! Not a government shutdown! If those last too long what excuse for stealing will we have after people realize we don't do shit!
Funny how everytime there's a government shutdown the side the public holds responsible for it feels the immediate political remafications of it... It's almost as if the work the government does matters... Who knew?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Or how about someone who can figure out that 2+2=4?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Therefore it is wrong to say White privilege does not exist.
Yeah... That was my point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I get that, but objectively speaking, Nigerians grow up in far more poverty and lack education opportunities, yet make the transition to a productive culture once they arrive in America.
You're talking about the sliver of the Nigerian population that managed to escape poverty there to come to America. It's not surprising in the least that this would be the group that does well once making jump.
You seem to be losing track of what this conversation is about and making a very typical error. Yes, any individual can overcome their obstacles and be successful, but we're not talking about possibility. We're talking about probability as it pertains to ones chances of overcoming the obstacles they were dealt. If you put 100 people in a room and give 50 of them an advantage, you will still get some of the disadvantaged 50 among the top half, but most will end up towards the bottom while most of the advantaged 50 will be towards the top. It's basic mathmatical probability.
No one is claiming black people can't overcome their disadvantages, we're saying that their disadvantages, however big, are real. And by logical extension, if one group is disadvantaged, it necessarily follows that at least some other group is advantaged, thus answering the central question of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't get dealt your culture, you choose to accept it when you become of age to do so.
By that point it's already been ingrained into you so not only will it take a full effort on the part of the individual that could be spent elsewhere, but it can also serve to alienate one's own support system since that support will likely not come along for the journey.
This is called a disadvantage, and it has real life effects on real people that can easily be demonstrated and traced over time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no science that draws any correlation between skin color and the chance of growing up fatherless
Growing up fatherless objectively, statistically, makes you more likely to abandon your children.
Therefore, forcefully taking fathers away from their children from an entire community is certain to result in that community having significantly higher rates of fatherlessness.
Guess what the biggest event in American history of pulling father's away from their children was? Hint: it has nothing to do with Nigerians.
The only reason why Americanized blacks are "unprivileged" is because they choose to live in a culture of poor education and fatherlessness.
This has got to be the stupidest comment I've ever read from you, and that's saying something.
Poor education and fatherlessness is not something one chooses, it is the hand that was dealt to them as a child.
Being dealt a poor hand early in life makes success later in life much more difficult. This is basic common sense.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The use of facts and evidence is literally built into the definition of critical thinking, so why would you claim that my "confession" that my atheism comes from the use of critical thinking mean that I didn't use facts and evidence to come to my position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Feel free to parse her quotes down for us..."The more we can elevate black women, that’s going to be a beautiful thing.”"I want to say I’ve earned every single thing, but as a white person, there is privilege."
Privilege doesn't mean you didn't earn what you have, it means there are obstacles out there that other people face which you don't have to.
To me, it's as clear as daylight. Whites are patronizingly superior due to skin color and in the unique position to elevate people who are inferior due to their skin color.
Because you are seeing only what is convenient, not what others are actually saying.
Being in a position to help others =/= being superior to them.
A classless society is one of the cornerstones of MAGA.
Achieving a classless society is a nobel goal and in my opinion should be our guiding principal on all matters of race. But having a nobel goal is not an excuse to ignore reality
It is not difficult to see how sickening it is when you've been told many times in your life (as nearly all black people have) to "go back to your country" despite standing in the only country you've ever known as your home - to be lectured by people who have never had that phrase uttered at them before and wouldn't even be able to contemplate it telling you how you're wrong for pointing out that there are in fact racial injustices in our society today that should be talked about.
So yeah, it's easy to preach about a colorless society when the color of your skin has never been a problem for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Even God picked the Jews as his chosen people.
So apparently you believe in Jew privilege
Created:
-->
@Mall
Didn't I say you were right ?
I can't tell, because you continue to assert something that contradicts what I said.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The use of critical thinking is what made me an atheist, yes.So it is not based on facts or evidence that made you an atheist according to your confession.
Do you know what critical thinking is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As one of the very few good white WNBA players, it's clearly due to her skin color.
No one is claiming it's *only* due to her skin color.
If your position was rational and coherent you wouldn't need to misrepresent the positions you argue against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
White privilege doesn't exist
Let's do a little thought experiment.
You are a spirit standing next to God looking down on America. God tells you he's about to send you down into the body of an infant to live a full human life and gives you a choice as to what race you'd like to be.
What are you going to choose, or are you going to tell God it doesn't matter?
Created:
-->
@Shila
You said critical thinking makes you an atheist.
The use of critical thinking is what made me an atheist, yes.
Not sure if that was intended to make a further point.
Created:
-->
@Mall
This is what I'm talking about plain and simple. Atheists believe there is no spirit of God period point blank .
Yes, I understand what's what you just said. The problem is that in this thing we call conversation, the things you say are supposed to be relevant to the points you're responding to.
I just explained to you why your overly simplistic assertion about atheists is wrong. You never bothered to address the point I made and instead just keep repeating you're original assertion. So do you have a response to what I said, Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@Mall
I believe no god of the sorts that I mentioned exist, because they can't exist. That is very different from proclaiming to know that we live in a godless universe.Yes you believing in no god makes you the atheist, that's right.
What are you talking about? Are you even reading what I'm typing?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yes, that happened since my original answer was given.
There is a reason I answered the question in the most generic terms possible. I'm just not interested in this case, that should have been obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Literally every active conservative on the site said the pardon is a non issue for them
I'm not talking about the 4 or 5 active conservatives on this site. I'm talking about the right wing media ecosystem.
It doesn't matter. I am one so I know how we think and what my opinions are
That's exactly the problem. Just because someone agrees with you doesn't mean they think like you. For that you need a deeper understanding of where they are coming from and that ranges quite a but even amongst people on the same side of the political isle. It is this gross misunderstanding that leads to all your other absurdities. It's why everytime I argue with you I have to constantly point out the strawman you are attacking. You have very poor reading comprehension skills on the surface, but when dug deeper it's obvious that the real problem is that you aren't paying attention at all, you're just combing through the words searching for your own rehearsed biases.
This is how I know exactly how you think. I used to be a liberal, so it's like arguing with a more retarded version of myself.
You don't know how I think, because liberal you is way different than liberal me. But as long as you continue to insist that you are arguing with yourself everything that follows will always be twisted by your mind into stupidity.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I never said I had doubts. I pointed out the fact that they still have to prove the person sitting in the defendants chair is the person on that video. That's not a controversial idea, it's common sense.
You seem to be concocting disagreement where none exists.
Created: