Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:But let me ask Setanta what he means by human BEAN. Could he be referring to Mexicans (who in my youth were sometimes called "beans" and "beaners"). What about Supreme Bean?
The Bear is exactly correct in this, JL, i just like to play with words. I don't believe in a Supreme Bean, by the way--except, of course, for Columbian coffee.
If a problem is not due to external causation, what are the MANY other option, since it is not binary? Anyone can say that something is or is not, but what is your supporting evidence? You have none!
Noah The African wrote:The saying, "The Truth hurts" is born from the recognition that truth often brings people pain and thus people who bring pain, via truth, will not be received well by others.
This does not, of course, mean you have any truth to share. You just want to associate the rejection of your brainfarts as rejection of the "truth".
Quote:Thus, the fact that whites get upset or use me as a recruiting tool to white supremacy organization speaks nothing of the validity or invalidity of what I have said.
No, it speaks for your lack of social skills and that you help portray black people in a negative light.
Quote: If people were biologically programmed to get upset ONLY about a non-truth, then I would head the reaction of whites to what I postulate, however, if the emperor thinks he has cloths on, but does not and I tell him so, he is likely to get angry about the truth.
Yaaawn... that does nothing to help make the case that you have any "truth" to share.
People react badly to you because your arguments are logically flawed (see the earlier noting of your simplistic binary approach), because you imagine insults and then reciprocate non-existent acts, and because you are rude.
The reaction speaks only about your lacking reading comprehension and social skills and says nothing about whether you have some much maligned "truth" to share.
Noah The African wrote:If a problem is not due to external causation, what are the MANY other option, since it is not binary? Anyone can say that something is or is not, but what is your supporting evidence? You have none!
Noah,
Please substantiate the assertion that I have "none". ;-)
I am not in the habit of making idiotic proclamations that I can't support.
You are (you still haven't offered a shred of evidence for calling me a white supremacist).
If you make an effort to substantiate your brainfarts I will support that argument of mine.
As it stands, I am still waiting for you to subtantiate your claim that I am a white supremacist. ;-)
Anytime you are ready....
The absence of evidence (of you even attempting to back up your assertions) is indeed evidence of absence (of the ability to back up your assertions).
I am simply one black person giving my opinion. Thus, why and how could a single black individual, make any white person see another black person that is not ME in a negative light?
Noah The African wrote:The absence of evidence (of you even attempting to back up your assertions) is indeed evidence of absence (of the ability to back up your assertions).
This is a glaring logical fallacy. :wink:
Quote:I am simply one black person giving my opinion. Thus, why and how could a single black individual, make any white person see another black person that is not ME in a negative light?
Because people generalize and stereotype, as you go out of your way to do here.
Are you going to apologize to Sugar for insulting her when you admit she did not say the thing you'd imagined she said?
Are you going to continue to call people racists without any evidence?
I am more than willing to discuss your thesis. I am also willing to stop being rude to you.
But I entered this thread because you are gratuitously insulting everyone and have not substantiated it. If you would stop randomly calling people racists people will be more inclined to discuss thinsg with you with less hostility (but do note that they might not agree, which will still not be cause for the aleatory "you are a racist" accusations).
I will not be responding to any more questions on this topic, unless people the rebuttal is scholarly in nature. Scholarly meaning that one does not use logical fallacies; one does not simply say that something is wrong or that they disagree (without offering supporting theory or reasoning) one’s emotions are not involved and that one is specific about where I am wrong and why I am wrong (with supporting contradictory theory or evidence). I guess that pretty much shuts down the thread….huh?
truth
Setanta, theologically I believe that the Supreme Bean is a pinto bean. The Reformation falsely asserted that it is a kidney bean, and the heathens from Africa say it is a black bean, and the damned Norwegians insist it is a white bean. Such blasphemies!
Noah, I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge that possibly 49% of Whites are not racists. If that is so, I assure you that some of them are on this thread. Too bad you can't see that; you might have made some friendships. By the way, I do not have a problem with your making GENERALIZATIONS (at least 51%) about white or any color of people; it's just that you express them as UNIVERSALIZATIONS (100%). Only after all the flack do you back away and qualify your assertions.
Noah The African wrote:I will not be responding to any more questions on this topic, unless people the rebuttal is scholarly in nature. Scholarly meaning that one does not use logical fallacies; one does not simply say that something is wrong or that they disagree (without offering supporting theory or reasoning) one's emotions are not involved and that one is specific about where I am wrong and why I am wrong (with supporting contradictory theory or evidence). I guess that pretty much shuts down the threadÂ….huh?
mission accomplished... :wink:
I had this conversation with a black guy today, and he is a self-admitted racist. He said "Blacks are superior, who made all the popular sports?" and I said "white doctors" and he said "Well, what color is the best at sports?" and I said "That is just because black people are generally poorer than white people, and they feel the only way to make it is through sports....while white kids focus on becoming a doctor, or a lawyer." he then called me wise beyond my years and said he wishes he was like me....except for the color of course.
JL, you never heard me state that ALL white people are anything, yet, you ascribe it to be what I have implied and that is erroneous. If you reread my original thesis or my responses, the preponderance of my use of the term “White” has been quantified with the adjective “Most”. I am not going to say that I have not used the term white, without quantifying it with the adjective, but the general rule is that I have. Thus, your assumption of a monolithic characterization of whites is born from your own attempts to find ammunition to discredit my propositions, or me for I have never stated a ubiquitous reference about the behavior or character of white people.
In light of that, you might want to know that if only 16% of whites in this nation were racist/white supremacy believers who discriminate, it would amount to 1 racist white person for every black person in the nation. If this 16% percent are distributed among CEO, hiring managers, supervisors, mortgage lenders, auto lenders, police officers, judges, lawyers, housing providers ect, it would certainly have an negative impact on blacks ability to reach equality.
Also, silence is consent. If good white people do not offset the activity of bad white people, then the effects of the activity of bad whites are preserved. Thus, if bad racist white people proactively discriminate against blacks, the only offset would be for good whites to actively discriminate in favor of blacks. Unless one offers a counter balance to a force, disequilibria will result and be conserved. Thus, to know that racism exist against black people and others, while being silent or anti-counter balancing activities or policies, means that one is actually part of the problem that results from the preservation of black inferiority of condition relative to whites.
I still believe that the majority of responders to this topic are white supremacy believers.
Noah The African wrote: I still believe that the majority of responders to this topic are white supremacy believers.
And you still do this without any supporting evidence, a habit of yours. ;-)
If you think these people are "white supremacy believers" I can't imagine what you'd think of my Mississippi brethren.
Child of the Light, Not a racist.
Bigotry and racism lives in all races and cultures. Trying to put a number on any one culture or race is a futile attempt to shame, and only the uninformed will buy into those retarded ideas. Noah the African may fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time - especially on A2K. He's an angry individual that thinks his attempts at logic will rule the day, but he's sadly mistaken.
Like I said before, one can deduce those who believe in black inferiority (white superiority) from the explanation they will provide to the question of why there is such a huge socioeconomic gap between whites and blacks. Human problems are either the result of NATURE or NURTURE. In other words, they are either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL is cause. If one cannot accept the option is binary, then please provide the other possibilities or just simply accept being seen as a person who disagrees emotionally, but lacks intellectual logical reasons why. Such a person likely has an emotional investment in a preconceived and/or trying to hide his or her true character.
Thus, the way responders have responded to this question, is how I deduce and glean who is a white supremacy believer.
In other words, if you don't like their response you call 'em a racist. That's called a brainfart.
Quote:
Also, silence is consent. If good white people do not offset the activity of bad white people, then the effects of the activity of bad whites are preserved. Thus, if bad racist white people proactively discriminate against blacks, the only offset would be for good whites to actively discriminate in favor of blacks. Unless one offers a counter balance to a force, disequilibria will result and be conserved. Thus, to know that racism exist against black people and others, while being silent or anti-counter balancing activities or policies, means that one is actually part of the problem that results from the preservation of black inferiority of condition relative to whites
Yet, you continue to ignore the many white people who have have furthered the black cause, who have not stood idly by, who have championed black acheivement, who have families and friends they hold dearly, who employ, educate, minister to and give credence to all black people - with colour blind eyes.
How can you discount/ignore this segment of the population and yet give the so-called 16%, the bad/rotten apples all the power and liken every white person them?
