Racist or not?

Quote: TigerWu

So you trust the Confederate government?

There is a Confederate government? Where?

Quote: TigerWu

Just having a preference for something doesn't necessarily indicate racism. It's WHY you have that preference that determines it.

It is a personal preference. What business is it of yours or anyone else's why someone has it?

Quote: AZDuffman

There is a Confederate government? Where?

In 1776 the confederates called themselves "Patriots"...

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

In 1776 the confederates called themselves "Patriots"...

Sort of related as someone brought up "confederates."

I wonder how many liberals think that racist, Confederate slave owners are the ones who decided slaves were 3/5 of a person?

Quote: AZDuffman

Sort of related as someone brought up "confederates."

I wonder how many liberals think that racist, Confederate slave owners are the ones who decided slaves were 3/5 of a person?

The slave owners wanted slaves to count as people to gain political influence. Not because the were super compassionate towards the people the held as slaves. Lmao.

The north didn't want them to count to maximize their own influence, though obviously they had a better argument. People being held as slaves are not going to gain political representation via their owners.

Like I said, I think it's better to just come out of the closet. Being a closet case only makes you more twisted.

Quote: Rigondeaux

The slave owners wanted slaves to count as people to gain political influence. Not because the were super compassionate towards the people the held as slaves. Lmao.

The north didn't want them to count to maximize their own influence, though obviously they had a better argument. People being held as slaves are not going to gain political representation via their owners.

I know this is true. I am wondering how many SJW liberals think it is the other way around, though.

Well, they weren't confederates at that point the war was won. It was actually a Pennsylvanian and Conn rep that suggested that solution. It wasnt a racist action, it was a compromise to appease the wealthy slave owning representatives of the South.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I wrote a lot of stuff about why its a complicated issue.

Obviously certain things like preferring big or petite women will affect the demos you like.

If someone is like, I have never found a single person outside my race attractive there is certainly some racially driven phenomena at work. But it doesn't mean they are in th kkk.

I don't think attraction has anything to do with it. Someone might find someone of another race totally hot, and still think that race is inferior.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Well, they weren't confederates at that point the war was won. It was actually a Pennsylvanian and Conn rep that suggested that solution. It wasnt a racist action, it was a compromise to appease the wealthy slave owning representatives of the South.

It was not racist, but it is taught that it was in our schools.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is a personal preference. What business is it of yours or anyone else's why someone has it?

So if it was someones "personal preference" to wear confederate apparel, wave a confederate flag, and thusly represent the former confederate military/government, you see nothing wrong with that?

You see nothing wrong with someone wanting to openly be in support of TERRORISTS to the united states? TERRORISTS mind you that were fighting for slavery, and thus clearly racist terrorist a&%holes AGAINST the united states?

Really? Well, not surprising really... but that's the truth of the matter. Anyone sporting confederate gear/flags/etc are racist terrorist supporting morons. Absolutely in zero way, shape, or form an "insult" as it's the same exact thing as saying "Anyone sporting nazi gear/flags/etc are racist terrorist supporting morons." The two are very much one in the same, which is clearly what you don't understand.

Quote: AZDuffman

I know this is true. I am wondering how many SJW liberals think it is the other way around, though.

I don't know. If they do they are just confused. I can see how it is counterintuitive that the side that generally did not see blacks as human suddenly wanted to count them as citizens. I'm not sure what point you think this proves.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I don't know. If they do they are just confused. I can see how it is counterintuitive that the side that generally did not see blacks as human suddenly wanted to count them as citizens. I'm not sure what point you think this proves.

One word. Votes. That got them more power in the newly formed congress. I understand why the northern delegates gave into the comprise too. They hated it the concept of slavery and really didn't want to yield more power to the south, but they needed all those states in the newly formed union.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

One word. Votes. That got them more power in the newly formed congress. I understand why the northern delegates gave into the comprise too. They hated it the concept of slavery and really didn't want to yield more power to the south, but they needed all those states in the newly formed union.

True. I'm just not getting why az thinks this exonerated the south or impugns contemporary liberals or whatever.

It is slightly confusing but the south was in the wrong and the compromise reflected the fact that blacks had the lowest status of any group.

Back to the OP's original question about dating a black woman at 19:

I probably would have, just for the novelty of it, but I'd never consider having a child with her, nor with an Asian.

Not because they are bad people; my concern would be for any progeny which our union might produce.

The kids, by report, would have tough sledding, being of mixed race.

Why impose that hellish scenario on someone you love?

Quote: Rigondeaux

I don't know. If they do they are just confused. I can see how it is counterintuitive that the side that generally did not see blacks as human suddenly wanted to count them as citizens. I'm not sure what point you think this proves.

The point it proves is their confusion about history and many other issues as well. They spend their lives angry at the wrong people.

I'd imagine that political affiliation has nothing to do with being confused by a slightly complicated scenario. Any confusion would be just factual. Like when Cali had that prop where you voted yes to say to did not want there to not be a ban on a ban on gay marriages.

Assuming you think slavery was wrong, if you are angry about the south in this scenario you would obviously have been angry at the right people.

Quote: MrV

Why impose that hellish scenario on someone you love?

I think a half Asian half white girl would do juuuuuust fine. Black certainly raises some problems.

Quote: Romes

So if it was someones "personal preference" to wear confederate apparel, wave a confederate flag, and thusly represent the former confederate military/government, you see nothing wrong with that?

Yes, it is personal preference.
No, I see nothing wrong with it.

Same people upset about it are more than happy to support illegal aliens waving the flag of a nation that attacked the USA. Same people called our own troops "baby killers" and terrorists. Same people say the USA was "never great."

Quote:

You see nothing wrong with someone wanting to openly be in support of TERRORISTS to the united states? TERRORISTS mind you that were fighting for slavery, and thus clearly racist terrorist a&%holes AGAINST the united states?

What terrorists? It was a breakaway nation with a uniformed army. That is not terrorism. Or are you calling the Continental Army "terrorists?" And, BTW, CSA soldiers are officially USA Veterans. You might want to get over your hate.

Quote:

Really? Well, not surprising really... but that's the truth of the matter. Anyone sporting confederate gear/flags/etc are racist terrorist supporting morons. Absolutely in zero way, shape, or form an "insult" as it's the same exact thing as saying "Anyone sporting nazi gear/flags/etc are racist terrorist supporting morons." The two are very much one in the same, which is clearly what you don't understand.

You are confused. People use the flag as a symbol of rebellion or the south in general. This is what you clearly do not understand.

I thought liberals were supposed to be "tolerant" of others?

Quote: MrV

The kids, by report, would have tough sledding, being of mixed race.

They would, and usually by the "minority" race. Blacks do not treat black/white folks very well in many cases. Asians to half-asians potentially even worse. Seen it happen, not pretty.

Quote: Rigondeaux

True. I'm just not getting why az thinks this exonerated the south or impugns contemporary liberals or whatever.

It is slightly confusing but the south was in the wrong and the compromise reflected the fact that blacks had the lowest status of any group.

At least the blacks had status.

After the Union army invaded the South so they wouldn't be able to sell cotton at market prices to England, they went west delivering the Stars and Stripes to indians.

The battle of Wounded Knee wasn't until 1890. https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1008.html

If you were black and a slave, at least they had to feed you. If you were an indian camped out on choice land, they used germ warfare against you.

Even the Buffalo soldiers got in on hunting indians.

Quote: AZDuffman

They would, and usually by the "minority" race. Blacks do not treat black/white folks very well in many cases. Asians to half-asians potentially even worse. Seen it happen, not pretty.

To be fair, mr Obama did ok for being a “black/white folk”

It's racist to say you would never, regardless, not racist to never do so. I knew a lady that went so far as to want to never sleep with anyone that ever slept with a black woman. She lost that bet.

Quote: RonC

If you don't feel another race is beneath you and you don't discriminate against them in any way other than deciding that you want to marry someone similar to you, you are a racist? I guess that fits the current narrative of calling everyone and everything "racist", but I am not sure it is anything more than a preference. Some people prefer their race or nationality; some don't...

The key here is "won't date a person" -- if you won't even consider a person because of their race, then yea. I prefer X but I'd consider Y is much different than I will only X. I am very specific; far from labeling everyone and everything...

Quote: AZDuffman

You are confused. People use the flag as a symbol of rebellion or the south in general. This is what you clearly do not understand.

I thought liberals were supposed to be "tolerant" of others?

Your interpretation is just one. People also use the flag as a symbol of hate towards others. So you shouldn't be too surprised if many people interpret it in a different way than you list here.

Shouldn't all people be tolerant of others?

At 19, did it really matter what race they were, if there was a chance of getting laid?

Quote: IndyJeffrey

The key here is "won't date a person" -- if you won't even consider a person because of their race, then yea. I prefer X but I'd consider Y is much different than I will only X. I am very specific; far from labeling everyone and everything...

Even in racially monolithic countries, people will find ways to differentiate others (e.g., where you live, your father’s occupation, the tone of your skin, the tattoos on your back...) It is part of our human nature. Preferring specific features in a mate doesn’t make someone racist. But getting in the face of an Anglo with braids and beads in their hair because you are upset they are “appropriating your culture” might.

Quote: IndyJeffrey

Shouldn't all people be tolerant of others?

Or equally contemptuous.

10+ pages to go from dating preferences to the Civil War. Y'all are slippin, used to only take 2 pages to go off topic

dating preferences / Civil War.

Battle of the sexes.

Quote: rxwine

dating preferences / Civil War.

Battle of the sexes.

Nothing's changed in a thousand years

Quote: IndyJeffrey

Your interpretation is just one. People also use the flag as a symbol of hate towards others. So you shouldn't be too surprised if many people interpret it in a different way than you list here.

I realize that they do, but the level they take it to is insane. Along with demanding statues they do not like be removed, names of places they do not like being changed. Its a weird kind of "purifying" they want.

Quote:

Shouldn't all people be tolerant of others?

My point is that liberals are the ones who cry for "tolerance." They make the call a cornerstone of their reason for being. But as soon as it is something they dislike, all that changes.

"liberal tolerance" does not mean tolerating hate.

Quote: Dalex64

"liberal tolerance" does not mean tolerating hate.

The problem is Dale is how liberals define "hate" and "hate speech". For example, I disagree with homosexuality base on my religious beliefs. If I espouse those beliefs, that is "hateful" according to liberals. Now, mind you, as a libertarian I want no laws restricting their lifestyle. However, just the mere fact that I disagree with them based on my religion, is viewed as hate.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Wizard

Single men of the forum, start spreading your feathers.

The guy with the best looking hobo bag wins.

Or as petroglyph said,

Quote: petrogkyph

Credit line

Quote: Romes

So if it was someones "personal preference" to wear confederate apparel, wave a confederate flag, and thusly represent the former confederate military/government, you see nothing wrong with that?

You see nothing wrong with someone wanting to openly be in support of TERRORISTS to the united states? TERRORISTS mind you that were fighting for slavery, and thus clearly racist terrorist a&%holes AGAINST the united states?

Really? Well, not surprising really... but that's the truth of the matter. Anyone sporting confederate gear/flags/etc are racist terrorist supporting morons. Absolutely in zero way, shape, or form an "insult" as it's the same exact thing as saying "Anyone sporting nazi gear/flags/etc are racist terrorist supporting morons." The two are very much one in the same, which is clearly what you don't understand.

I think that to you have to take the intention of the action into account. Take the fictional character Sheldon Cooper. He exhibited very racist behaviour towards his university's HR rep by comparing her to a slave. There's ignorance of why something you do or say is racist that needs to count in the whole equation. And if AZ or Sheldon is wrong in his thoughts I don't think it makes them racist until they match it up with a conscious decision to hurt someone else of that race category based on a hate of that race. For example thinking that a race is sucking monkey blood doesn't necessarily mean that you hate that race.

For the same reasons that we use confirmation bias in our everyday thinking, we do the same in our day to day interactions with people. For example I've been trained after 9 years on this forum to pretty much discount anything that a person sporting a Confederate icon says. Most of us have been trained to think certain ways about certain groups of people because it's part of our cognitive thinking. If we have several dating experiences with indian women for example and it always turns out the same where their famiky disappoves because they didn't approve the relationship or got too involved too soon then you can't blame us for steroptyping the race and excluding them from your dating pool. If we watch the news everyday and see the description of a criminals as always the same race we might be biased against them, just as much as if we see 23 come up on the roulette wheel 4 times in 7 spins that we might the inclined to get 23 again.

That all said, here in Canada diversity is being shoved up our collective rears to the point where even the most liberal media is saying "enough". But that's for another day.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

The problem is Dale is how liberals define "hate" and "hate speech". For example, I disagree with homosexuality base on my religious beliefs. If I espouse those beliefs, that is "hateful" according to liberals. Now, mind you, as a libertarian I want no laws restricting their lifestyle. However, just the mere fact that I disagree with them based on my religion, is viewed as hate.

I'll say that I agree with that 100%.

I don't know what, "Hate Speech," is if someone is not using pejoratives or threatening someone else with physical harm. I don't even know that pejoratives should necessarily be disallowed because free speech and all of that.

I also don't really have a problem with religious people who keep it to themselves, but when they do express their disagreement, then I can express why I disagree with their disagreement as pertains to someone's lifestyle. As far as the churches go, that's their house, so they can do whatever they want there and I have nothing to say about it. I avoid going to churches, events hosted by churches, events where churches are participating, events where churches will have stands set up and avoid making purchases at small businesses where I know that the owner is religious whenever possible, such is my right. (Jewish and Mormon-owned small businesses are exceptions, I like them.)

Anyway, all of those places are their territory, so they can put their hands on one another's heads and pretend to fall down and have convulsions while speaking complete and total gibberish, "Tongues," or whatever else the less extreme ones like to do whenever they want to.

When you have my territory, which is if a Religious person comes up and knocks on the door, (Except Mormons, I like them, they're well-versed and open to frank discussion) then they can prepare for the verbal beat down they are about to receive.

Anything else is basically neutral territory, and on neutral territory, I'm kind of, "Treat others as they treat me," when it comes to that kind of stuff. If they don't bring up Religion, then it's not going to come up. If they don't bring up any anti-(group) opinions, then the discussion won't come up. If they do bring any of those things up, the vast majority of them are not as intelligent as you are VCUSkyhawk, so they're going to find themselves getting flat out embarrassed when I come at them...but that's on them for bringing it up on neutral ground.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

The problem is Dale is how liberals define "hate" and "hate speech". For example, I disagree with homosexuality base on my religious beliefs. If I espouse those beliefs, that is "hateful" according to liberals. Now, mind you, as a libertarian I want no laws restricting their lifestyle. However, just the mere fact that I disagree with them based on my religion, is viewed as hate.

Personally as a Christian with a gay daughter I tell my pastors in uncertain terms that they can take those seven verses of the Bible that mention homosexuality and shove it up their rears.

Saying that the Bible says that homosexulity is a sin is not hate speech. Its the beginning of a debate.

Quote: Mission146

I also don't really have a problem with religious people who keep it to themselves, but when they do express their disagreement, then I can express why I disagree with their disagreement as pertains to someone's lifestyle.

Well, I should say that those with anti-homosexual views should not be obligated to "keep it to themselves". However, I do welcome discussion on my beliefs or the topic in general as long as it is civil. When the first thing that is launch is "You're a bigot" well, I tend not to even want to engage that person. Same on the other side of the coin. The zealots who shout things like "All fags are going to hell" are usually beyond having a civil discussion with. I dont think all homosexuals are going to hell, nor do I think it is my place to make such assumptions.

Quote: Mission146

"Treat others as they treat me," when it comes to that kind of stuff.

This is my thought on all things in life. Race, Religion, Sexuality. Have your opinions, if you can state them in a civil manner, sure talk about them. If you can't, its probably best to keep it to yourself. All in all, the best rule is...don't be a dick.

Quote: boymimbo

Personally as a Christian with a gay daughter I tell my pastors in uncertain terms that they can take those seven verses of the Bible that mention homosexuality and shove it up their rears.

Saying that the Bible says that homosexulity is a sin is not hate speech. Its the beginning of a debate.

Agreed.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

The problem is Dale is how liberals define "hate" and "hate speech". For example, I disagree with homosexuality base on my religious beliefs. If I espouse those beliefs, that is "hateful" according to liberals. Now, mind you, as a libertarian I want no laws restricting their lifestyle. However, just the mere fact that I disagree with them based on my religion, is viewed as hate.

It really depends on how it is expressed.

If you tell some one that a perfectly wise and just god will torture them forever because of who they are, that's about a hateful thing as you can possibly say.

If you pick out a few outside groups and endlessly focus on their real or perceived shortcomings that's low character and arguably hateful.

Why gays and, for others, blacks? Why not people who beat their kids or reckless drivers or lobbyists or con artists or people who put ranch on pizza?

If you simply have a background opinion that gays should remain celibate or something if they wish to conform to one particular religious view than that doesn't seem like a big deal but also not something you should really worry about if not gay.

Quote: boymimbo

Personally as a Christian with a gay daughter I tell my pastors in uncertain terms that they can take those seven verses of the Bible that mention homosexuality and shove it up their rears.

Saying that the Bible says that homosexulity is a sin is not hate speech. Its the beginning of a debate.

A translation of a translation of a translation meant to serve the needs of the ruling powers that be of the time.

Even if I wanted to assume that The Bible was somehow the, "Word of God," handed down to us at some point, there's no proof whatsoever that it hasn't been bastardized to facilitate societal expectations of the ruling class.

Besides, why should so many Christians hold those verses in such high regard whilst blatantly ignoring others?

Quote: Rigondeaux

Why gays and, for others, blacks? Why not people who beat their kids or reckless drivers or lobbyists or con artists or people who put ranch on pizza?

My guess is that it's because too many of their own beat their kids and/or are con artists. White Heterosexual Evangelical Christians can assail blacks and, to a lesser extent, gays pretty easily. The first reason is because they will never be black, because they are white, so no risk of being exposed as a hypocrite there. The second reason is that most of them can be trusted not to engage in any homosexual affairs, at least, enough of them seem to avoid it that they can keep it as a talking point.

Quote: Mission146

Besides, why should so many Christians hold those verses in such high regard whilst blatantly ignoring others?

A major problem that I myself have with many Christians. Sin is sin. I believe that God hates all sin. There are some that tend to focus on being gay acts (which I do believe is a sin) and say adultery, or being a drunk. I dont feel a need to go around talking about homosexuality all the time, however if confronted by somebody who wants to know my opinion, I will freely give it.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Well, I should say that those with anti-homosexual views should not be obligated to "keep it to themselves". However, I do welcome discussion on my beliefs or the topic in general as long as it is civil. When the first thing that is launch is "You're a bigot" well, I tend not to even want to engage that person. Same on the other side of the coin. The zealots who shout things like "All fags are going to hell" are usually beyond having a civil discussion with. I dont think all homosexuals are going to hell, nor do I think it is my place to make such assumptions.

If the anti-homosexual beliefs are a matter of Christian principle, then those who are not willing to listen to conflicting opinions would do well to keep it to themselves on neutral ground, is my point. I don't care what they say about it inside of their homes or their churches, as I have no business in either of those places.

If they want to, as business owners, to extend it to a refusal of service for certain groups, (as is certainly their right) then they can prepare for the backlash that comes from that. In turn, even though I'm not personally homosexual, I have decided that I will not patronize small businesses if I come to know that the owner of same is religious and I will discourage other people from using the services of those same businesses. (Except Jewish people and Mormons)

Anyway, you and I could certainly have the discussion, but I think that we would find so much agreement in our approach to things that it would hardly even be a debate. When I talk, "Neutral ground," I'm talking about the people who raise their voices when they think someone who the subject describes is around in such a way that the person could hear it while still being able to deny they are talking to or about that person. Classic move. I call it out every time.

Quote:

This is my thought on all things in life. Race, Religion, Sexuality. Have your opinions, if you can state them in a civil manner, sure talk about them. If you can't, its probably best to keep it to yourself. All in all, the best rule is...don't be a dick.

I agree with that 100%. Also, like I said before, I don't just run around in day to day life trashing religions or religious people. If they don't bring up certain subjects on neutral territory, then neither will I.

Quote: Mission146

If the anti-homosexual beliefs are a matter of Christian principle, then those who are not willing to listen to conflicting opinions would do well to keep it to themselves on neutral ground, is my point. I don't care what they say about it inside of their homes or their churches, as I have no business in either of those places.

If they want to, as business owners, to extend it to a refusal of service for certain groups, (as is certainly their right) then they can prepare for the backlash that comes from that. In turn, even though I'm not personally homosexual, I have decided that I will not patronize small businesses if I come to know that the owner of same is religious and I will discourage other people from using the services of those same businesses. (Except Jewish people and Mormons)

Anyway, you and I could certainly have the discussion, but I think that we would find so much agreement in our approach to things that it would hardly even be a debate. When I talk, "Neutral ground," I'm talking about the people who raise their voices when they think someone who the subject describes is around in such a way that the person could hear it while still being able to deny they are talking to or about that person. Classic move. I call it out every time.



I agree with that 100%. Also, like I said before, I don't just run around in day to day life trashing religions or religious people. If they don't bring up certain subjects on neutral territory, then neither will I.

I agree with all of your response, although the whole Jewish and Mormon thing gives me a chuckle. I have to ask why?

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

A major problem that I myself have with many Christians. Sin is sin. I believe that God hates all sin. There are some that tend to focus on being gay acts (which I do believe is a sin) and say adultery, or being a drunk. I dont feel a need to go around talking about homosexuality all the time, however if confronted by somebody who wants to know my opinion, I will freely give it.

I don't have any problem with any of that, certainly if someone asks you for your opinion, then they have opened up the floor.

I don't think that the notion of God that comes to mind when I have read The Bible should hate anything. If he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then he set about a cycle in this world that he created and a course of events such that he knew each individual conclusion. If a person is gay, then it's because God made them that way, knew he made them that way and decided to make that person anyway. He knew the results ahead of time. As such, there also could be no free will despite protestations to the contrary because God would know everything that is going to happen before it happens in our frame of reference.

The reason why is that there is no reason that time should be restricted to linear movement for God, so he can jump back and forth as he pleases or experience all things at once, if he chooses to. He has unlimited power. If you doubt that, it becomes all foretold in the Book of Revelations when the endtime is discussed. How could God know, with absolute surety, the final result if he hasn't seen it or forseen it yet?

The answer is that he could, so if there is any sin in this world, it's because God put it there. If someone murders someone else, it's because God created the murderer knowing he was going to commit murder. If a child gets raped, God knew that the rapist would do the raping and that the child would be raped and have to live with that for the rest of his or her life.

That's what makes it difficult to believe in God, but if I wanted to assume God, then I see no way except for all to be held blameless for their sins. They had no other choice. It's Fatalistic Determinism, they were put here having no other choice but to do what they, in fact, did. There is no free will because we would all be being controlled.

In the alternative, God could exist and we could have free will. However, in order for that to happen, he would have to not be all-knowing...at an absolute minimum. He would have to experience time in a linear way, as we do, such that he doesn't know the results of his individual creations before they happen.

I would argue that he couldn't be all-powerful, either. Either that, or he is and screwed up. Why the capacity for sin? Why is being gay biologically possible? Why can one man be sexually aroused by another if God didn't put that capacity in there? God could have wired us to make the very notion so abhorrent as to be effectively impossible. When it comes to the type of crimes that ruin (or end) the lives of the victim, he could have made those types of crimes mentally inconceivable to commit.

What did the victim do? What sort of God would allow that, and why? To preserve Free Will? To satisfy his own ego? To prove a point against beings far less powerful than he is?

In case I haven't put a fine enough point on it, I don't believe in the Abrahamic notion of God, but if he does exist, then I'll look him in the face and tell him he can go F*** himself and he can do whatever he likes to me.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

I agree with all of your response, although the whole Jewish and Mormon thing gives me a chuckle. I have to ask why?

I have not known a Jewish person, in my entire life, who is a hypocrite. More importantly, Judaism is as much a culture as it is a religion, and a terrific culture, at that. In my experience, Jewish people are more intelligent and open-minded than most others and that stems from humor, tolerance and inquisitiveness being instilled as core values from an early age. I could be wrong, but that is the way I see that.

Mormons are prepared to intellectually defend their Religious views in both a meaningful and non-dogmatic way. Unlike most other Abrahamic Religions, when you get them backed into a corner, they can bring themselves to admit that they don't actually know for sure. That's a pretty essential component of an examined Religious life, in my opinion. Other Abrahamic Religion adherents seem more than content to fall back on the answer to the question being the question itself and calling it a day. That's because many of them are abject morons.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, it is personal preference.
No, I see nothing wrong with it.

Same people upset about it are more than happy to support illegal aliens waving the flag of a nation that attacked the USA. Same people called our own troops "baby killers" and terrorists. Same people say the USA was "never great."



What terrorists? It was a breakaway nation with a uniformed army. That is not terrorism. Or are you calling the Continental Army "terrorists?" And, BTW, CSA soldiers are officially USA Veterans. You might want to get over your hate.



You are confused. People use the flag as a symbol of rebellion or the south in general. This is what you clearly do not understand.

I thought liberals were supposed to be "tolerant" of others?

This has to be some of the saddest and most obvious gas-lighting I've ever seen. "What terrorists?" LOL "It was a breakaway nation with a uniformed army." GTFO you're kidding me, right? The south stood for SLAVERY, racism, and in case you don't recall (from history) their "uniform army" FOUGHT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They were a hostile army on our own soil. They were, are, and forever will be a disgrace to our history and should be remembered as such.

The pathetic part is the 'next generation' raised in the south their parents LIED to them telling them "oh the south had fine people on both sides" but that's not the truth, and not what's in the history books. Every single person that fought on the south and represents the south (even to today) is a racist terrorist piece of s%*t. Bottom line, that's the facts, jack. Don't take my word for it, try reading a real history book sometime.

Let's talk about, "Doing a Job."

"Doing a Job," is a professional wrestling term for an opponent meant to be perceived as weaker to lose handily to an opponent meant to be perceived as stronger in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the wrestler meant to be, "Getting a push."

We're not talking about that kind of Job today, though, this story is about Job with a long, 'O.'

I'm going to take for granted that most people have a passing familiarity with the Parable of Job, but if not, then anyone should feel free to brush up.

The first thing that happens is you have this guy Job, who has an extremely happy life. He's an all-around cool cat, but he's also rich and he has a bunch of terrific kids.

Anyway, Lucifer, Satan whatever you want to call him is meandering around, basically minding his own business, and for no other reason than to taunt him, God says, "Check out this Job guy, his faith is unwavering!"

Anyway, Satan retorts, "Well, yeah homeboy, he's f***ing rich and has a terrific family, why shouldn't he be happy with you?"

With infinite power apparently comes infinite ego, so God says, "You know what, you're right, he has been blessed. I'll tell you what, you do whatever you want to everything that he has, but don't touch him and you will see his faith does not waver."

Satan essentially took away all of Job's riches and killed the better part of his friends and family by a number of different means.

Sometime later Satan comes wandering around again, so God, who obviously hadn't proven his point well-enough to let it be, had to continue running his mouth. "Look, you like this s***? I let you take everything away from Job, and it still wasn't enough to make him hate or doubt me."

Satan responds, "Good play, homeslice, but you didn't let me do anything directly to him did you? Like, his person?"

God's response, "Fine, go ahead, it won't change anything."

And so it didn't change anything.

After that, God rewarded Job with twice the family and riches that he had before, because people can just be replaced, clearly, and everything is fine.

The best part is I think it could be argued that Lucifer realized it wouldn't change anything the second time around and essentially trolled God into giving him permission to do with Job as he pleased short of killing him. Of course, that's doubtful because that would take away the notion that God is all-knowing, unless he knew that Lucifer was doing that and still didn't care.

The Point

Anyway, you have God who created Satan/Lucifer and God who created Job. God absolutely knew that Job would remain faithful under any circumstances because not only had he seen it happen, but also because he created Job to be that way.

Beyond that, he started the argument with Lucifer who was basically just minding his own business content to do Lucifer things.

In essence, Job was outright punished for his unwavering faith in God, there's no other way to look at it. And, to what end? Job was punished so that God could win an argument against Lucifer that God started and already knew what the result would be. Granted, Job was compensated in the end and would, presumably, be admitted to the kingdom of Heaven, but he had to endure an effective Hell on Earth first. And, why? So that God, who is more powerful than both Lucifer and Job, could satisfy his immeasurable ego.

It's like an owner kicking the crap out of his dog, or letting someone else kick the crap out of it, just to prove that he has absolute control over the life of his dog. It's literally the same exact thing. That's why, if there is a God, f*** that guy.

Or, we could say that there was no Job and the parable was just one of those Biblical things that did not literally happen. Of course, having a conversation becomes difficult when people are allowed to go through and pick and choose what's literal and what is not literal. Also, how do they know what is literal from it and what is not?

Quote: Mission146

Let's talk about, "Doing a Job."

"Doing a Job," is a professional wrestling term for an opponent meant to be perceived as weaker to lose handily to an opponent meant to be perceived as stronger in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the wrestler meant to be, "Getting a push."

We're not talking about that kind of Job today, though, this story is about Job with a long, 'O.'

I'm going to take for granted that most people have a passing familiarity with the Parable of Job, but if not, then anyone should feel free to brush up.

The first thing that happens is you have this guy Job, who has an extremely happy life. He's an all-around cool cat, but he's also rich and he has a bunch of terrific kids.

Anyway, Lucifer, Satan whatever you want to call him is meandering around, basically minding his own business, and for no other reason than to taunt him, God says, "Check out this Job guy, his faith is unwavering!"

Anyway, Satan retorts, "Well, yeah homeboy, he's f***ing rich and has a terrific family, why shouldn't he be happy with you?"

With infinite power apparently comes infinite ego, so God says, "You know what, you're right, he has been blessed. I'll tell you what, you do whatever you want to everything that he has, but don't touch him and you will see his faith does not waver."

Satan essentially took away all of Job's riches and killed the better part of his friends and family by a number of different means.

Sometime later Satan comes wandering around again, so God, who obviously hadn't proven his point well-enough to let it be, had to continue running his mouth. "Look, you like this s***? I let you take everything away from Job, and it still wasn't enough to make him hate or doubt me."

Satan responds, "Good play, homeslice, but you didn't let me do anything directly to him did you? Like, his person?"

God's response, "Fine, go ahead, it won't change anything."

And so it didn't change anything.

After that, God rewarded Job with twice the family and riches that he had before, because people can just be replaced, clearly, and everything is fine.

The Point

Anyway, you have God who created Satan/Lucifer and God who created Job. God absolutely knew that Job would remain faithful under any circumstances because not only had he seen it happen, but also because he created Job to be that way.

Beyond that, he started the argument with Lucifer who was basically just minding his own business content to do Lucifer things.

In essence, Job was outright punished for his unwavering faith in God, there's no other way to look at it. And, to what end? Job was punished so that God could win an argument against Lucifer that God started and already knew what the result would be. Granted, Job was compensated in the end and would, presumably, be admitted to the kingdom of Heaven, but he had to endure an effective Hell on Earth first. And, why? So that God, who is more powerful than both Lucifer and Job, could satisfy his immeasurable ego.

It's like an owner kicking the crap out of his dog, or letting someone else kick the crap out of it, just to prove that he has absolute control over the life of his dog. It's literally the same exact thing. That's why, if there is a God, f*** that guy.

Or, we could say that there was no Job and the parable was just one of those Biblical things that did not literally happen. Of course, having a conversation becomes difficult when people are allowed to go through and pick and choose what's literal and what is not literal. Also, how do they know what is literal from it and what is not?

You sound angry Mission. May in His infinite grace, God grant you peace and serenity ;)

We shall meet up one day, you see like a fun guy to share a beer with.