Racist or not?
Poll
 | 17 votes (44.73%) | ||
| | 21 votes (55.26%) |
38 members have voted
Quote: VCUSkyhawk
You sound angry Mission. May in His infinite grace, God grant you peace and serenity ;)
Thanks, I'm not angry. I don't believe in God, so I don't have anybody to be angry at. I certainly will be angry if I am wrong and it turns out God exists, hopefully he will be merciful enough to give me the satisfaction of telling him to F*** himself before he terminates me or allows me to be subjected to whatever torture he deems appropriate.
Quote:We shall meet up one day, you see like a fun guy to share a beer with.
I feel the same way about you, it'll be a good time!
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThe 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..
Let's flip it around, as I think many Christians think anti-Christian sentiments are bad when they are also associated with depriving them of their rights to practice their religion. And I assume that upset them. Also, not sure why Christians should put up with it either, except it's a good thing to suffer for their religion apparently. But that's also their personal choice to turn the other cheek, and doesn't have to be anyone else's choice.
Quote: rxwineBut that wasn't what was going on
What are you referring to?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWhat are you referring to?
Do you eat shrimp? Ever toss around a football? Do you take every passage in the bible literally or just the convenient ones?
I personally don't care, but seeing as you cite your religion for not accepting homosexuals, I must ask- Should Tom Brady and the entire NFL be put to death?
Quote: billryanDo you eat shrimp? Ever toss around a football? Do you take every passage in the bible literally or just the convenient ones?
I personally don't care, but seeing as you cite your religion for not accepting homosexuals, I must ask- Should Tom Brady and the entire NFL be put to death?
Billy, if you really wish to have a discussion on my thoughts regarding my faith, I will be happy to do so via private message or I ever get a chance to meet you at a WOV event. I understand that even given my statement of meaning no ill will to the gay community that my disapproval of homosexuality is in the minority view here. I really dont wish to defend myself against the bulk of the forum.
Well, you said it twice so I'll bite. What do you find special about Jewish people and Mormons?Quote: Mission146Except Jewish people and Mormons)
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWhat are you referring to?
I guess that Christian comparison didn't work. Christians in some places are second class in rights, are banned or run out of places or worse. All has happened to gay people. Some people in that country might say today, why are you upset when we just bring up the topic of why we think you're not good enough. We're not throwing you out anymore or killing you as much, we just don't want you living as married, or adopting kids. At least you're not being killed or stoned. You don't have to pretend you're not gay. We've gone out of our way to give you 95 percent of everything we take for granted. Why you so angry?.
I'm not saying it's the Christian response to be highly offended, as they have this built in thing to take offense in their religion for the most part.
This is not even my full response to this issue. Just one of them.
Quote: RomesThis 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.
This is one of the more foolish attitudes we tend to take at the moment. Might be more common on the liberal left side of things but probably just takes different forms.
I'm not sure how you can expect some 18 year old farm boy in the 19th century to have the historical and even moral overview of someone with a high speed internet connection in the 21st century.
Do you feel the same way about soldiers who went to Iraq? It was at least theoretically possible for them to research the matter.
You're a kid and someone tells you to defend your people so you do your best to be brave. Same as it ever was.
Moreover, everyone wants to think they'd be Oscar Schindler. But the record shows we mostly just follow along.
I assume you donate most of your income to our almost slaves, who work on far away sweatshops and spend your summers deactivating our unexploded munitions in Vietnam. If you just lead a normal life, perhaps do some charity here and there and think "gosh, that's too bad" sometimes, then you prob would have been the same way in another time and place.
There is a famous essay on moral luck. Maybe ill hunt it down, since this is a gambling forum.
Is AZD an 18 year old boy with no history lesson or recollection of the truth of the events that took place during the civil war?Quote: RigondeauxThis is one of the more foolish attitudes we tend to take at the moment. Might be more common on the liberal left side of things but probably just takes different forms.
I'm not sure how you can expect some 18 year old farm boy in the 19th century to have the historical and even moral overview of someone with a high speed internet connection in the 21st century.
Do you feel the same way about soldiers who went to Iraq? It was at least theoretically possible for them to research the matter.
You're a kid and someone tells you to defend your people so you do your best to be brave. Same as it ever was...
I can't speak for all, so perhaps you're right and my views are biased... but I could definitely tell the difference between "right" and "wrong" such as treating other human beings as slaves and less than human... that kind of thing... which A LOT of Americans at that time ALL felt, which is why there was aid to get slaves to the north where they would be free... and also why the North WON the war. Clearly "enough" people were able to figure out right from wrong. This also wasn't a "defensive" stance the south took, they launched a war against the United States in support of slavery and their attempts to secede. Again, plain as day, they're terrorists.
What's that phrase my college always spouted off about anything and everything..? ..oh yes... ignorance is not an excuse. I don't think ignorance is an excuse to be a racist, terrorist, or even a racist terrorist supporter.
Quote: rxwineI guess that Christian comparison didn't work. Christians in some places are second class in rights, are banned or run out of places or worse. All has happened to gay people. Some people in that country might say today, why are you upset when we just bring up the topic of why we think you're not good enough. We're not throwing you out anymore or killing you as much, we just don't want you living as married, or adopting kids. At least you're not being killed or stoned. You don't have to pretend you're not gay. We've gone out of our way to give you 95 percent of everything we take for granted. Why you so angry?.
I'm not saying it's the Christian response to be highly offended, as they have this built in thing to take offense in their religion for the most part.
This is not even my full response to this issue. Just one of them.
I think I understand what you are getting at now. And just to be clear I dont want to deny them getting married by the government nor prevent them from adopting kids. You say the Christian is giving them 95%, that is not the case with me. I want them to have 100%, go live your life. Is it really taking something from them if I judge it immoral? I wouldn't treat them any different than a friend who I know is an adulterer.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI think I understand what you are getting at now. And just to be clear I dont want to deny them getting married by the government nor prevent them from adopting kids. You say the Christian is giving them 95%, that is not the case with me. I want them to have 100%, go live your life. Is it really taking something from them if I judge it immoral? I wouldn't treat them any different than a friend who I know is an adulterer.
The "judging immoral" becomes important when some people adopt more biblical old testament sentiment than others.
Quote: rxwineThe "judging immoral" becomes important when some people adopt more biblical old testament sentiment than others.
This is not a theocracy so I don't think you have a worry there. There are plenty of Christians who are may view a sinner as wrong without wanting to impose their will on the sinner.
In the end, I can only speak for me.
Quote: RomesIs AZD an 18 year old boy with no history lesson or recollection of the truth of the events that took place during the civil war?
I can't speak for all, so perhaps you're right and my views are biased... but I could definitely tell the difference between "right" and "wrong" such as treating other human beings as slaves and less than human... that kind of thing... which A LOT of Americans at that time ALL felt, which is why there was aid to get slaves to the north where they would be free... and also why the North WON the war. Clearly "enough" people were able to figure out right from wrong. This also wasn't a "defensive" stance the south took, they launched a war against the United States in support of slavery and their attempts to secede. Again, plain as day, they're terrorists.
What's that phrase my college always spouted off about anything and everything..? ..oh yes... ignorance is not an excuse. I don't think ignorance is an excuse to be a racist, terrorist, or even a racist terrorist supporter.
I'm not talking about someone who thinks the confederacy was right in 2018 like AZ.
Ignorance is not an acceptable defense for breaking the law.
If it's not a reasonable explanation for bad behavior Idk what is. How can you act upon that which you do not know?
I guess you can make the choice to cultivate and indulge ignorance. What follows is then your fault, perhaps. But I would not apply this to someone who acts normally in his time and place.
In any case, I don't think getting all worked up about confederate soldiers is really very different from getting all worked up about real or perceived wrong doings of any other group.
Again, many of our soldiers just obliterated a country full of innocent people. Do you blame them, or the leaders who lied to them?
Many of our products are made by people who live in dormatories and work 7 days a week in exchange for sustinance for unfathomably rich people. What do you do about it?
If the answer is little to nothing (as it is for me), you probably wouldn't have been part of the underground railroad.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that we are addicted to elevating ourselves by relishing the failures of others, which we can't control. When we could work on our own actions, which we do control.
Like I'm doing right now.
Quote: RomesThis 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.
So, do you feel the same way about the Continental Army in the American Revolution? Because the same arguments can be made there.
Quote: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.
See, the reason I cannot take you seriously is something tells me when there is a muslim terror attack you tell everyone around how there are "good muslims" and the terrorists are just some small microfraction of all muslims. Am I right?
EDIT: I am guessing, however, that you vote reliable Democrat. Democrat, the party of slavery and Jim Crow. But you forgive that because, "it represents something different now."
Am I right on all counts?
Or while people like you are freaking out about a muslim attack, I'll look at all of the data and realize 99%+ of our "terrorist attacks" are from white male citizens of the united states. Yet, let's harp on the brown people...Quote: AZDuffman...See, the reason I cannot take you seriously is something tells me when there is a muslim terror attack you tell everyone around how there are "good muslims" and the terrorists are just some small microfraction of all muslims. Am I right?...
Quote: RomesOr while people like you are freaking out about a muslim attack, I'll look at all of the data and realize 99%+ of our "terrorist attacks" are from white male citizens of the united states. Yet, let's harp on the brown people...
See, I don’t harp on one attack. I look at what a muslim influx does to societies on a large scale. And I don’t use your broad definition of “terrorist attack” to blame white people.
Whenever you are ready to explain how you vote for the party that supported slavery but still hate the rebel flag let me know. But to be honest excessive whining about racism bores the hell out of me.
Broad definition... lol. If a "brown" person does anything it's IMMEDIATELY a terrorist attack, even if they're from the US, and say queens (go look it up). Yet when 99% of the mass shootings/etc, real terrorists attacks, come from white male US citizens, then it's "broad" to call them terrorists. Just laughable the hypocrisy and racism. Oh, you know who I voted for? $5 says you're wrong... take that bet and guess?Quote: AZDuffmanSee, I don’t harp on one attack. I look at what a muslim influx does to societies on a large scale. And I don’t use your broad definition of “terrorist attack” to blame white people.
Whenever you are ready to explain how you vote for the party that supported slavery but still hate the rebel flag let me know. But to be honest excessive whining about racism bores the hell out of me.
Quote: RomesBroad definition... lol. If a "brown" person does anything it's IMMEDIATELY a terrorist attack, even if they're from the US, and say queens (go look it up). Yet when 99% of the mass shootings/etc, real terrorists attacks, come from white male US citizens, then it's "broad" to call them terrorists. Just laughable the hypocrisy and racism. Oh, you know who I voted for? $5 says you're wrong... take that bet and guess?
Wow are you hung up on race.
Are you saying that these 99% of killings have political motivations?Quote: RomesBroad definition... lol. If a "brown" person does anything it's IMMEDIATELY a terrorist attack, even if they're from the US, and say queens (go look it up). Yet when 99% of the mass shootings/etc, real terrorists attacks, come from white male US citizens, then it's "broad" to call them terrorists. Just laughable the hypocrisy and racism. Oh, you know who I voted for? $5 says you're wrong... take that bet and guess?
ter·ror·ist
ˈterərəst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
synonyms: extremist, fanatic; More
Quote: petroglyphAre you saying that these 99% of killings have political motivations?
ter·ror·ist
ˈterərəst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
synonyms: extremist, fanatic; More
I have to wonder something different. The gay Florida nightclub and San Bernardino were two mass shootings by Muslims. So were there 200 mass shootings by white makes that just didn’t make the news?
Quote: RSI was at the airport the other day and some terrorist lady just mumbled something in my direction then handed me her cell phone. I'm thinking wtf, this is probably a bomb detonator. She had a pretty big bag suitcase that I feel could have had a bomb in it. Whatever, #YOLO. Anyway, I answered the phone and talked to a terrorist-sounding person and after much confusion I determined it was an Uber driver trying to tell her where to go. Why couldn't they just talk to each other? #TheWorldMayNeverKnow
That is the Dept of EB.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have to wonder something different. The gay Florida nightclub and San Bernardino were two mass shootings by Muslims. So were there 200 mass shootings by white makes that just didn’t make the news?
This country has a lot of "mass shootings"
in the last month about 40 times. No idea of race but we do live in a pretty violent country
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
Quote: petroglyphWell, you said it twice so I'll bite. What do you find special about Jewish people and Mormons?
Quote: Mission146I 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: VCUSkyhawkBilly, if you really wish to have a discussion on my thoughts regarding my faith, I will be happy to do so via private message or I ever get a chance to meet you at a WOV event. I understand that even given my statement of meaning no ill will to the gay community that my disapproval of homosexuality is in the minority view here. I really dont wish to defend myself against the bulk of the forum.
You are the one who brought it up. You stated your dislike of homosexuals is based on your religious beliefs.
Seems strange you want everyone to know that 1) you dont like gay people and 2) it's not personal, it's religious but don't wish to debate it.
I think inquiring about who else you don't like based on your religion is fair.
Quote: billryanYou are the one who brought it up. You stated your dislike of homosexuals is based on your religious beliefs.
Seems strange you want everyone to know that 1) you dont like gay people and 2) it's not personal, it's religious but don't wish to debate it.
I think inquiring about who else you don't like based on your religion is fair.
Billy, I never, not one time said that I don't like them. Please don't put words into my mouth. I merely said I find it to be morally wrong. I also said, that I want them to be able to live their lives they way they see fit.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkBilly, I never, not one time said that I don't like them. Please don't put words into my mouth. I merely said I find it to be morally wrong. I also said, that I want them to be able to live their lives they way they see fit.
More than once, you state that you are anti-homosexual. If you want to play games and say you never said you don't like them, perhaps you can tell me what anti-homosexual means?
Quote: billryanMore than once, you state that you are anti-homosexual. If you want to play games and say you never said you don't like them, perhaps you can tell me what anti-homosexual means?
Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
I can be against something someone does without disliking that person personally. There are some people who would dip french fries in Ranch Dressing rather than Horseradish Sauce. I am anti their choice of condiment, but I'll still have dinner with them...unless they dip their fries in ketchup and are over the age of ten. Ketchup users have to eat at a separate table from me, so that would make me anti-ketchup user as opposed to just anti-ketchup.
Quote: billryanMore than once, you state that you are anti-homosexual.
This statement is a lie in two parts. I just went through, and I did mention "those that were anti-homosexual" and it did it exactly once. Again, please dont misquote me.
However you falsehood did have me reflex as to whether I do consider myself "anti-homosexual" and I would say no. I don't dislike them, nor do I wish them any ill will.
There are 3 street walkers on the corner.
A white girl, 5 on a scale of 10.
A black girl, 6 on a scale of 10.
A gay transsexual of ambiguous race. 8 on a scale of 10.
What criteria do you apply to your selection?
Quote: gordonm888Okay, let's stop talking about "dating" and ask this a different way:
There are 3 street walkers on the corner.
A white girl, 5 on a scale of 10.
A black girl, 6 on a scale of 10.
A gay transsexual of ambiguous race. 8 on a scale of 10.
What criteria do you apply to your selection?
White girl, easy.
Quote: gordonm888Okay, let's stop talking about "dating" and ask this a different way:
There are 3 street walkers on the corner.
A white girl, 5 on a scale of 10.
A black girl, 6 on a scale of 10.
A gay transsexual of ambiguous race. 8 on a scale of 10.
What criteria do you apply to your selection?
In Thailand, Kathoey (or lady boys) face less of a stigma as a sex workers than most places. I don't know if that means there is a likelihood that more men in Thailand engage in transgender sex than other places but I suspect so.
Thomas Jefferson had six children with Sally Jennings his slave, but never admitted it.
RS prefers a white woman of 5 rating over higher numbers. (should have made her a 1)
What does it all mean?
Quote: gordonm888
There are 3 street walkers on the corner.
A white girl, 5 on a scale of 10.
A black girl, 6 on a scale of 10.
A gay transsexual of ambiguous race. 8 on a scale of 10.
I'd find another corner.
Why does it have to be the end of the night?Quote: Mission146Why does it have to be a street walker? Why can it not be a non-prostitute at a bar at the end of the night?
Quote: Mission146Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
I can be against something someone does without disliking that person personally. There are some people who would dip french fries in Ranch Dressing rather than Horseradish Sauce. I am anti their choice of condiment, but I'll still have dinner with them...unless they dip their fries in ketchup and are over the age of ten. Ketchup users have to eat at a separate table from me, so that would make me anti-ketchup user as opposed to just anti-ketchup.
Example: I disagree with about 98% of what AZ says. But I probably would really like AZ in person.
Dipping fries in ketchup at an in-and-out is a must.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThis statement is a lie in two parts. I just went through, and I did mention "those that were anti-homosexual" and it did it exactly once. Again, please dont misquote me.
However you falsehood did have me reflex as to whether I do consider myself "anti-homosexual" and I would say no. I don't dislike them, nor do I wish them any ill will.
In jesus-centric churches it's love the sinner and abhor the sin. This allows Christians who are not hate mongering zealots to understand that nobody can be perfect. Jesus did not seek out perfect people to be his disciples.
As for Job, it has always been an interesting discussion. I don't think God knows the future. He is not deterministic and I don't think we live in a predetermined life. (Some Christian faiths do, by the way) I doubt that He would have had a need for Jesus if his earthbound humans would have not strayed as much as they did. I don't think God knew that Job knew that he was going to be faithful either. As for God allowing the snake into the Garden, what good is a story without a protagonist?
A) If it ain't white it ain't right.
B) Once you go black you never go back.
C) I like Big Butts and I can not lie.
D) I only like white turtles
Quote: petroglyphhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/small-business-ownership-among-black-americans-jumps-400-one-year
That's quite a jump
Also quite fake news. The story in question points to a survey that, in its release does not mention race in its polling results (it mentions sits minority clients increasing dramatically but this is not a poll result) and certainly nowhere is the 400% mentioned nor can I find the actual poll from guidant mentioning any figures at all about race.
You see some story posted somewhere and it leads you to.a piece of something that seems legitimate which points to a legitimate poll which doesn't poll race at all.
This is how fake news spreads.
Sry that was Off-Topic but damn.
Edit: Btw I assumed the ratings were for what a standard or average person would rate them women. So if a tranny is a 10/10, for me it’s 0/10 cuz I ain’t touching that with a 9-inch pole. Idk about a 6/10 black woman, but I’d almost certainly rate her lower than the average man.
Quote: petroglyphWhy does it have to be the end of the night?
For me to be choosing between a five and a six for one night stand purposes? It has to be the end of the night.
Quote: AxelWolf
C) I like Big Butts and I can not lie.
Option E:
I like big T**s and I ain’t gonna quit,
You other brothers need to sit,
Don’t want no woman with a rack,
That’s as flat as her back;
If that cup size is, “Lack,”
I ain’t hitting that.
Keeping it real, G.
"Why should using race as a dating criteria be considered any different than any other criteria." (age, height, weight, religion, etc.)
Not once.
Quote: AZDuffman20 pages into this thread and still not one person with the "it is" position has answered the basic question"
"Why should using race as a dating criteria be considered any different than any other criteria." (age, height, weight, religion, etc.)
Not once.
That wasn't the question. That's your question, but you weren't the OP.
Quote: SOOPOOThere has been so much back and forth here on whether the POTUS is a racist or not. Whether he ever in his life used the N word.
My question for the forum..... You are a 19 year old guy/gal and looking for a date. You choose not to look at anyone who is from a different race than your own. Are you thus a racist?
( I had a date with an African American girl at 19 so I know I'm not talking about myself!)
