Guns: how much longer will it take ....

US
A bishop in El Paso kneeled in prayer for George Floyd. Two days later, Pope Francis called

By Alisha Ebrahimji, CNN

Updated 7:22 PM ET, Fri June 5, 2020



Bishop Mark Seitz's act of kneeling in prayer for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to remember George Floyd prompted a call from Pope Francis this week.
(CNN)Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz had no idea that his act of solidarity in El Paso, Texas, would be met with a phone call of gratitude from his boss, Pope Francis.
With eyes closed, masks covering their faces, white roses in hand and handwritten signs that read "Black Lives Matter," Seitz and 12 other priests from the Diocese of El Paso knelt in silence for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Monday.
They were praying in silence for George Floyd, a black man who died in the custody of Minneapolis police after an officer knelt on his neck for that same amount of time.


Pope Francis condemns death of George Floyd, calls US unrest 'disturbing'
"Frankly, what I did and what I have said is only a very small way to take part in what so many are doing in their peaceful protests," Seitz said.




Two days after the clergy's prayer, Seitz had just finished celebrating Mass when he got a call on his cellphone from the pontiff himself.
In Spanish, Francis told Seitz how grateful he was for Seitz's response to Floyd's death.
"Through me, he's expressing his unity with everyone who is willing to step out and say this needs to change," Seitz said. "This should never happen again. Wherever there is a lack of respect for human beings, where there's a judgment based on the color of their skin, this has to be rooted out.
"Whether it's in law enforcement, in business, in government, in any aspect of our society, this has to change. And now we know very clearly that the Holy Father is making this his prayer."



During Pope Francis' weekly Angelus prayer at the Vatican on Wednesday, he addressed Floyd by name in a "relatively rare" move for the Pope, according to John Allen, CNN's senior Vatican analyst.
Francis called Floyd's death "tragic" and said he is praying for him and "all those others who have lost their lives as a result of the sin of racism."

Axe murderer is a figure of speech.

It's because:

Untrue claims do not need to be explained, beyond pointing out the fact that they are untrue.

oralloy wrote:

Axe murderer is a figure of speech. I could have said "serial killer", "psychopath", or any other term for "creepy guy who means to do her harm".

Nope. You use axe murderer literally in place of 'guy who made vague threat and tried to give a dog a treat'.

- you demonise the black guy as much as possible

because you are racist

you engage in severe demonisation the black participants of such discussed conflicts

- your argument is weak,

and still refusing to answer a question you've never answered.

No one is surprised that you avoid like the plague answering this question. You obviously recognise the holes it would start poking in your nonsense facts, so can't bring yourself to answer it.

ROFL.. After all, this is really the heart of your issue isn't it - your belief that she wasn't racist.

But you can't think up a credible reason she needed to keep repeating 'black african american male'...

ie You can't stick up for your views

because you can't find a credible reason that explains the need for her behaviour (repeating 'black african american male' several times).

The very obvious one is that her racist side came out.

Posting actual facts about what he said and did is hardly demonization.

You engage in childish name-calling because you can't come up with an intelligent argument to defend your position.

I've answered it many times.

There is nothing racist about calling the police when someone says that you are not going to like what they are about to do and then tries to lure your pet away.

No one said it is, and you know this. Your calling him an axe murderer is demonisation. This is very explicitly explained.

Which avoids, yet again, the explanations provided for why you are engaging in racism.

Nope. An answer is any of:
- yes
- no
- these ones I agree with are...
You attempt to divert while avoiding like the plague actually answering do you believe that women can't be any or all of: confident in themselves; empowered; skilful; black belts in various martial arts, great communicators, believe in standing up for themselves; who understand conflict management; who engage in problem solving; who can negotiate almost anything; who know how to de-escalate situations; who readily form rapport with even angry strangers; who can see people for who they are in each moment; etc.

Your supposed response My answer is: Your contention that a woman will sit down in a remote area and have a conversation with a likely axe murderer is preposterous. Very obviously is in response to whether or not she should talk.... while the question in blue exists before that question, after that question, and during that question. The blue question is a much larger question about how you view women - whether you think they are capable of skill, confidence, achieving things, managing conflicts etc (nominated in blue)..

...but you refuse to answer it.

We all know why. Your argument starts to fall apart.

Which you've been told multiple times there is not. Every person who has called her racist has done so for her detailing him as african american three times. I've rewatched it, and that is how many times it occurs.

You offer no alternate explanation.

You can make any excuse you like for your inability to articulate why she needed to say it three times...but that's all it is, excuses on your part to avoid justifying your position.