General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 3823 times

TheCross

  • ****
  • 5352 Posts
  • Follower of christ.
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #75 on: October 06, 2016, 06:43:34 am »
Shapiro is attempting to inject a sense of scale into the argument and suggests that BLM's (the very name suggests racism is the cause) outrage should be proportionate to the myriad of problems facing the black community. This might stop the rioting if BLM would consider problems other than racism. Could you imagine the same level of outrage directed towards violent criminals in the community?! Another interesting statistic he claims is that a police officer is roughly 18.5% more likely to be shot by a black male than the other way around.

Shapiro recently interviewed Thomas Sowell and gave due reverence, so I doubt he's racist.

Well I'm afraid I don't think that it is reasonable for Shapiro to do that.  I am guessing you are concerned when you hear about police officers getting shot in the line of duty.  So am I.  But what about when political types try to gain support by describing police officers as "heroes who risk their lives every".  Should I point out that more police officers die from road traffic accidents than at the hands of suspects?  Or should I point out that police officer is only the 15th most dangerous job in the US and ask them to turn down the rhetoric?  I wouldn't do any of that.  It would be churlish to deny that police officers have to face dangerous situations.  If there is a concern about the safety of police officers it wouldn't occur to me to say "hey calm down, there are bigger problems to face, why aren't you worried about police officers dying in car crashes or from the complications of diabetes?"

I would have thought that as a police officer you would be more horrified than anybody by some of the videos we have seen.  It is sad that there are lots of black on black shootings but you can't do too much about that.  That's going to take socio-economic regeneration and high level policy change.  But surely if you thought that just a few suspects we're being shot by the good guys you would be appalled?

I really don't understand this.  My hospital saves hundreds of lives every day.  And people who die often do so by neglecting to take their meds or self-destructive behaviour.  But if there is just one death that is due to medical misadventure it is treated as a sentinel event and there is an inquiry.  If a doctor is shown to be negligent we don't protect him.  If a doctor ignores a patient because they are old, poor or homeless or non-adherent and self-destructive, the doctor is educated about their unconscious bias and how this cost a life.  If there are a run of deaths at a hospital it wouldn't occur to the chief medical officer to say "Why so much campaigning about negligent doctors or underfunded hospitals.  Hospitals do loads of good.  Where is the political outrage about McDonalds or tobacco companies - they kill thousands every year and the politicians refuse to start a sugar tax! Why have a go at doctors?  It's just a few bad apples who were on the golf course when they were supposed to be on call.  Most doctors are great professionals." 


And suffice to say, agreeing to interview a black man really doesn't imply that you don't view issues through a prism of race when you shouldn't.

Either you just ignore what I say, or you dont seem to understand something im trying to teach you.

The BLM movement started on the basis of shootings that, in hindsight, were fabrications, the movement adapted a narrative of victimhood, claiming all sorts of things that the public(you included) belive to be true.
The majority cases used at the early stage of the movement were proven, by the DOJ to be legitimate shootings by the police, and this caused an increase in hostility and rethoric due to the false narrative that is belived to be true.

Do you notice the fire-wall? Either you agree with falsehoods or you are a part of the shadowracist-ghost.

This is the problem at the foundational level.

Now, lets move up to level 1.

The BLM movement stated numerous claims about racial-motivated conducts, a few of these would be:

1) More black men are in prison then white men.
2) Stop and Frisk targets more blacks then whites.
3) Police do not care about black ghettos.
4) More black people get shot then white people by the police.
5) Gun-free zones are only argued for in black communities(most ridiculous thing i have ever heard).
6) More likely to be stopped by police if you are black contra white.

And on ad nauseum.

Generally, apart from 5)(i included that  point for the giggles, because its beyond nuts) these are the commandments within the movement itself, the various hashtags and slogans all come to these specific points.
Now, what we as outsiders should ask, is this true?

Well, not even close.

Black people do not get killed more the white people, black people dont recive extra attention by the police due to their skin tone. In situations where police draw weapons, statistics show that white people get shot in higher rates then black people, white people top the charts on arrests for speeding while a test done in a pre-dominantly black area showed that police actually stop less speeders then they should do.

Bottom line, every single statistic used is proven to be false, and not only does the movement not accept this, they become violent when you question it, the cop killings a few months back were not done by some "maniac", it was an ex-army soldier, and he was praised by supporters of this movement in thousands of tweets and posts.

You keep bringing up cause of death, why? Was the car racist? Are you seriously not detecting your faulty reasoning?

The cops and the institution they stand for are accused of racism, it is not the cops that print statistics showing that blacks kill blacks but its a reaponse to a charge of evil.
The cops have stated that the lack of numbers, money and the increase of hostility and crime combined with a rotten a-moral culture and poverty is a combination of causes that has caused the mess to reach such hights.

Now, add the condemnation from that sadistic, race-baiting demon of a woman(Hillary Clinton) and Obama, who speaks about a shooting that later turned out to be false...

This is what we mean with idiotic leadership.

Gal 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

1

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #76 on: October 06, 2016, 07:19:45 am »
The EU is a house of cards. The weakest link determines the strength of the house. Greece is one example of a weak link, but there are other countries with debts causing a weakening of the EU as a whole. Britain left the sinking boat just in time, it is up to other countries to decide whether they stay or leave. If I could vote, my vote would be to leave the EU. The oligarchs are afraid that Britain will cause a domino effect in Europe. They have every right to be afraid, because that is what is likely going to happen in the future.
Actually the biggest weakness in the EU is monetary union without sufficient political union. Britain didn't use the Euro anyway so it was immune from the chief negative effects of other member countries' debts.

What is going to unite Europe politically? I don't think there can be political union within Europe. You need some sort of ''glue'' to unite Europe. In the past, the glue was Christianity. Today, Christianity has eroded away and replaced by pluralism of all kinds. Pluralism is a weak glue.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

2

Deadeye

  • **
  • 655 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #77 on: October 06, 2016, 08:56:10 am »
I, as a Christian police officer, cannot accept the idea that I'm a hero. God has placed me in positions to be used to save lives but that glory belongs to God. That being said, it isn't the risk alone which paints the job of law enforcement as a heroic endeavor. It's also about what the risk is for. Sure there are many jobs more dangerous but I'm sorry, society probably won't erect monuments dedicated to people who've lost their lives trying to catch crabs in the ocean.

I resist jumping to conclusions when these videos are released and because of my training and experience. Though I withhold voicing my judgement, I do have the advantage of a trained eye from which to view these things. Even so, I take as objective stance as I can, presuming innocence until proven guilty but not so far as the courts rightly do in which the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. I know that "unarmed" means very little when deadly force is used. If the officer has a reasonable belief (something they hold to be true) that they were in danger of being killed or receiving great bodily harm, deadly force is authorized. It could turn out that their life was not in danger after all but if the belief was a reasonable belief to hold at the time of jeopardy, they won't be guilty of murder. There must be a reasonable belief that there must exist an ability to be killed, an opportunity and jeopardy. Time is of the essence. That is the standard of law by which we are all judged so this isn't unique to police.

Absolutely I am concerned about any killing, even justified killings. I believe all humans are created in the image of God and are infinitely valuable.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 01:52:15 pm by Deadeye »

3

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #78 on: October 07, 2016, 01:20:20 am »
Shapiro is attempting to inject a sense of scale into the argument and suggests that BLM's (the very name suggests racism is the cause) outrage should be proportionate to the myriad of problems facing the black community. This might stop the rioting if BLM would consider problems other than racism. Could you imagine the same level of outrage directed towards violent criminals in the community?! Another interesting statistic he claims is that a police officer is roughly 18.5% more likely to be shot by a black male than the other way around.

Shapiro recently interviewed Thomas Sowell and gave due reverence, so I doubt he's racist.

Well I'm afraid I don't think that it is reasonable for Shapiro to do that.  I am guessing you are concerned when you hear about police officers getting shot in the line of duty.  So am I.  But what about when political types try to gain support by describing police officers as "heroes who risk their lives every".  Should I point out that more police officers die from road traffic accidents than at the hands of suspects?  Or should I point out that police officer is only the 15th most dangerous job in the US and ask them to turn down the rhetoric?  I wouldn't do any of that.  It would be churlish to deny that police officers have to face dangerous situations.  If there is a concern about the safety of police officers it wouldn't occur to me to say "hey calm down, there are bigger problems to face, why aren't you worried about police officers dying in car crashes or from the complications of diabetes?"

I would have thought that as a police officer you would be more horrified than anybody by some of the videos we have seen.  It is sad that there are lots of black on black shootings but you can't do too much about that.  That's going to take socio-economic regeneration and high level policy change.  But surely if you thought that just a few suspects we're being shot by the good guys you would be appalled?

I really don't understand this.  My hospital saves hundreds of lives every day.  And people who die often do so by neglecting to take their meds or self-destructive behaviour.  But if there is just one death that is due to medical misadventure it is treated as a sentinel event and there is an inquiry.  If a doctor is shown to be negligent we don't protect him.  If a doctor ignores a patient because they are old, poor or homeless or non-adherent and self-destructive, the doctor is educated about their unconscious bias and how this cost a life.  If there are a run of deaths at a hospital it wouldn't occur to the chief medical officer to say "Why so much campaigning about negligent doctors or underfunded hospitals.  Hospitals do loads of good.  Where is the political outrage about McDonalds or tobacco companies - they kill thousands every year and the politicians refuse to start a sugar tax! Why have a go at doctors?  It's just a few bad apples who were on the golf course when they were supposed to be on call.  Most doctors are great professionals." 


And suffice to say, agreeing to interview a black man really doesn't imply that you don't view issues through a prism of race when you shouldn't.

Either you just ignore what I say, or you dont seem to understand something im trying to teach you.

The BLM movement started on the basis of shootings that, in hindsight, were fabrications, the movement adapted a narrative of victimhood, claiming all sorts of things that the public(you included) belive to be true.
The majority cases used at the early stage of the movement were proven, by the DOJ to be legitimate shootings by the police, and this caused an increase in hostility and rethoric due to the false narrative that is belived to be true.

Do you notice the fire-wall? Either you agree with falsehoods or you are a part of the shadowracist-ghost.

This is the problem at the foundational level.

Now, lets move up to level 1.

The BLM movement stated numerous claims about racial-motivated conducts, a few of these would be:

1) More black men are in prison then white men.
2) Stop and Frisk targets more blacks then whites.
3) Police do not care about black ghettos.
4) More black people get shot then white people by the police.
5) Gun-free zones are only argued for in black communities(most ridiculous thing i have ever heard).
6) More likely to be stopped by police if you are black contra white.

And on ad nauseum.

Generally, apart from 5)(i included that  point for the giggles, because its beyond nuts) these are the commandments within the movement itself, the various hashtags and slogans all come to these specific points.
Now, what we as outsiders should ask, is this true?

Well, not even close.

Black people do not get killed more the white people, black people dont recive extra attention by the police due to their skin tone. In situations where police draw weapons, statistics show that white people get shot in higher rates then black people, white people top the charts on arrests for speeding while a test done in a pre-dominantly black area showed that police actually stop less speeders then they should do.

Bottom line, every single statistic used is proven to be false, and not only does the movement not accept this, they become violent when you question it, the cop killings a few months back were not done by some "maniac", it was an ex-army soldier, and he was praised by supporters of this movement in thousands of tweets and posts.

You keep bringing up cause of death, why? Was the car racist? Are you seriously not detecting your faulty reasoning?

The cops and the institution they stand for are accused of racism, it is not the cops that print statistics showing that blacks kill blacks but its a reaponse to a charge of evil.
The cops have stated that the lack of numbers, money and the increase of hostility and crime combined with a rotten a-moral culture and poverty is a combination of causes that has caused the mess to reach such hights.

Now, add the condemnation from that sadistic, race-baiting demon of a woman(Hillary Clinton) and Obama, who speaks about a shooting that later turned out to be false...

This is what we mean with idiotic leadership.

I am not, and have never, been discussing BLM.  I have not expressed aN opinion on BLM.  I don't know anything about BLM.  I keep telling you this.  WHY DO YOU KEEP TELLING ME ABOUT BLM?
Life is a box of chocolates!

4

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #79 on: October 07, 2016, 01:32:18 am »
I, as a Christian police officer, cannot accept the idea that I'm a hero. God has placed me in positions to be used to save lives but that glory belongs to God. That being said, it isn't the risk alone which paints the job of law enforcement as a heroic endeavor. It's also about what the risk is for. Sure there are many jobs more dangerous but I'm sorry, society probably won't erect monuments dedicated to people who've lost their lives trying to catch crabs in the ocean.

I resist jumping to conclusions when these videos are released and because of my training and experience. Though I withhold voicing my judgement, I do have the advantage of a trained eye from which to view these things. Even so, I take as objective stance as I can, presuming innocence until proven guilty but not so far as the courts rightly do in which the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. I know that "unarmed" means very little when deadly force is used. If the officer has a reasonable belief (something they hold to be true) that they were in danger of being killed or receiving great bodily harm, deadly force is authorized. It could turn out that their life was not in danger after all but if the belief was a reasonable belief to hold at the time of jeopardy, they won't be guilty of murder. There must be a reasonable belief that there must exist an ability to be killed, an opportunity and jeopardy. Time is of the essence. That is the standard of law by which we are all judged so this isn't unique to police.

Absolutely I am concerned about any killing, even justified killings. I believe all humans are created in the image of God and are infinitely valuable.

That's all totally reasonable.

I especially agree with the first paragraph and it hits on a truth.  We don't value all deaths the same.   An officer being killed in the line of duty has more impact on us than a fishing accident.  Similarly, one black drug dealer shooting an unarmed black drug dealer doesn't make us think the same way as a police officer shooting an unarmed drug dealer.

This is another reason why Shapiro going on about most black deaths being caused by other blacks is totally off the mark.  We value police officers as those that uphold the law and protect us.  If that person loses their life whilst doing that it is "extra" shocking.  That's why citing other jobs as more dangerous is irrelevant and silly.  Similarly if that person protecting the innocent actually shoots an unarmed man unnecessarily it is "extra" shocking.  The fact that drug dealers do this more often is very sad but not so shocking.  Which is why Shapiro's response is dumb.
Life is a box of chocolates!

5

TheCross

  • ****
  • 5352 Posts
  • Follower of christ.
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #80 on: October 07, 2016, 03:36:04 am »
Shapiro is attempting to inject a sense of scale into the argument and suggests that BLM's (the very name suggests racism is the cause) outrage should be proportionate to the myriad of problems facing the black community. This might stop the rioting if BLM would consider problems other than racism. Could you imagine the same level of outrage directed towards violent criminals in the community?! Another interesting statistic he claims is that a police officer is roughly 18.5% more likely to be shot by a black male than the other way around.

Shapiro recently interviewed Thomas Sowell and gave due reverence, so I doubt he's racist.

Well I'm afraid I don't think that it is reasonable for Shapiro to do that.  I am guessing you are concerned when you hear about police officers getting shot in the line of duty.  So am I.  But what about when political types try to gain support by describing police officers as "heroes who risk their lives every".  Should I point out that more police officers die from road traffic accidents than at the hands of suspects?  Or should I point out that police officer is only the 15th most dangerous job in the US and ask them to turn down the rhetoric?  I wouldn't do any of that.  It would be churlish to deny that police officers have to face dangerous situations.  If there is a concern about the safety of police officers it wouldn't occur to me to say "hey calm down, there are bigger problems to face, why aren't you worried about police officers dying in car crashes or from the complications of diabetes?"

I would have thought that as a police officer you would be more horrified than anybody by some of the videos we have seen.  It is sad that there are lots of black on black shootings but you can't do too much about that.  That's going to take socio-economic regeneration and high level policy change.  But surely if you thought that just a few suspects we're being shot by the good guys you would be appalled?

I really don't understand this.  My hospital saves hundreds of lives every day.  And people who die often do so by neglecting to take their meds or self-destructive behaviour.  But if there is just one death that is due to medical misadventure it is treated as a sentinel event and there is an inquiry.  If a doctor is shown to be negligent we don't protect him.  If a doctor ignores a patient because they are old, poor or homeless or non-adherent and self-destructive, the doctor is educated about their unconscious bias and how this cost a life.  If there are a run of deaths at a hospital it wouldn't occur to the chief medical officer to say "Why so much campaigning about negligent doctors or underfunded hospitals.  Hospitals do loads of good.  Where is the political outrage about McDonalds or tobacco companies - they kill thousands every year and the politicians refuse to start a sugar tax! Why have a go at doctors?  It's just a few bad apples who were on the golf course when they were supposed to be on call.  Most doctors are great professionals." 


And suffice to say, agreeing to interview a black man really doesn't imply that you don't view issues through a prism of race when you shouldn't.

Either you just ignore what I say, or you dont seem to understand something im trying to teach you.

The BLM movement started on the basis of shootings that, in hindsight, were fabrications, the movement adapted a narrative of victimhood, claiming all sorts of things that the public(you included) belive to be true.
The majority cases used at the early stage of the movement were proven, by the DOJ to be legitimate shootings by the police, and this caused an increase in hostility and rethoric due to the false narrative that is belived to be true.

Do you notice the fire-wall? Either you agree with falsehoods or you are a part of the shadowracist-ghost.

This is the problem at the foundational level.

Now, lets move up to level 1.

The BLM movement stated numerous claims about racial-motivated conducts, a few of these would be:

1) More black men are in prison then white men.
2) Stop and Frisk targets more blacks then whites.
3) Police do not care about black ghettos.
4) More black people get shot then white people by the police.
5) Gun-free zones are only argued for in black communities(most ridiculous thing i have ever heard).
6) More likely to be stopped by police if you are black contra white.

And on ad nauseum.

Generally, apart from 5)(i included that  point for the giggles, because its beyond nuts) these are the commandments within the movement itself, the various hashtags and slogans all come to these specific points.
Now, what we as outsiders should ask, is this true?

Well, not even close.

Black people do not get killed more the white people, black people dont recive extra attention by the police due to their skin tone. In situations where police draw weapons, statistics show that white people get shot in higher rates then black people, white people top the charts on arrests for speeding while a test done in a pre-dominantly black area showed that police actually stop less speeders then they should do.

Bottom line, every single statistic used is proven to be false, and not only does the movement not accept this, they become violent when you question it, the cop killings a few months back were not done by some "maniac", it was an ex-army soldier, and he was praised by supporters of this movement in thousands of tweets and posts.

You keep bringing up cause of death, why? Was the car racist? Are you seriously not detecting your faulty reasoning?

The cops and the institution they stand for are accused of racism, it is not the cops that print statistics showing that blacks kill blacks but its a reaponse to a charge of evil.
The cops have stated that the lack of numbers, money and the increase of hostility and crime combined with a rotten a-moral culture and poverty is a combination of causes that has caused the mess to reach such hights.

Now, add the condemnation from that sadistic, race-baiting demon of a woman(Hillary Clinton) and Obama, who speaks about a shooting that later turned out to be false...

This is what we mean with idiotic leadership.

I am not, and have never, been discussing BLM.  I have not expressed aN opinion on BLM.  I don't know anything about BLM.  I keep telling you this.  WHY DO YOU KEEP TELLING ME ABOUT BLM?

But you argue with the same mindset and even the same points as the movement itself, but fine, if you feel offended by this label, we can use you as a single person with ideas.
So can i now get a response to the above?
Gal 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

6

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #81 on: October 07, 2016, 04:01:39 am »
Shapiro is attempting to inject a sense of scale into the argument and suggests that BLM's (the very name suggests racism is the cause) outrage should be proportionate to the myriad of problems facing the black community. This might stop the rioting if BLM would consider problems other than racism. Could you imagine the same level of outrage directed towards violent criminals in the community?! Another interesting statistic he claims is that a police officer is roughly 18.5% more likely to be shot by a black male than the other way around.

Shapiro recently interviewed Thomas Sowell and gave due reverence, so I doubt he's racist.

Well I'm afraid I don't think that it is reasonable for Shapiro to do that.  I am guessing you are concerned when you hear about police officers getting shot in the line of duty.  So am I.  But what about when political types try to gain support by describing police officers as "heroes who risk their lives every".  Should I point out that more police officers die from road traffic accidents than at the hands of suspects?  Or should I point out that police officer is only the 15th most dangerous job in the US and ask them to turn down the rhetoric?  I wouldn't do any of that.  It would be churlish to deny that police officers have to face dangerous situations.  If there is a concern about the safety of police officers it wouldn't occur to me to say "hey calm down, there are bigger problems to face, why aren't you worried about police officers dying in car crashes or from the complications of diabetes?"

I would have thought that as a police officer you would be more horrified than anybody by some of the videos we have seen.  It is sad that there are lots of black on black shootings but you can't do too much about that.  That's going to take socio-economic regeneration and high level policy change.  But surely if you thought that just a few suspects we're being shot by the good guys you would be appalled?

I really don't understand this.  My hospital saves hundreds of lives every day.  And people who die often do so by neglecting to take their meds or self-destructive behaviour.  But if there is just one death that is due to medical misadventure it is treated as a sentinel event and there is an inquiry.  If a doctor is shown to be negligent we don't protect him.  If a doctor ignores a patient because they are old, poor or homeless or non-adherent and self-destructive, the doctor is educated about their unconscious bias and how this cost a life.  If there are a run of deaths at a hospital it wouldn't occur to the chief medical officer to say "Why so much campaigning about negligent doctors or underfunded hospitals.  Hospitals do loads of good.  Where is the political outrage about McDonalds or tobacco companies - they kill thousands every year and the politicians refuse to start a sugar tax! Why have a go at doctors?  It's just a few bad apples who were on the golf course when they were supposed to be on call.  Most doctors are great professionals." 


And suffice to say, agreeing to interview a black man really doesn't imply that you don't view issues through a prism of race when you shouldn't.

Either you just ignore what I say, or you dont seem to understand something im trying to teach you.

The BLM movement started on the basis of shootings that, in hindsight, were fabrications, the movement adapted a narrative of victimhood, claiming all sorts of things that the public(you included) belive to be true.
The majority cases used at the early stage of the movement were proven, by the DOJ to be legitimate shootings by the police, and this caused an increase in hostility and rethoric due to the false narrative that is belived to be true.

Do you notice the fire-wall? Either you agree with falsehoods or you are a part of the shadowracist-ghost.

This is the problem at the foundational level.

Now, lets move up to level 1.

The BLM movement stated numerous claims about racial-motivated conducts, a few of these would be:

1) More black men are in prison then white men.
2) Stop and Frisk targets more blacks then whites.
3) Police do not care about black ghettos.
4) More black people get shot then white people by the police.
5) Gun-free zones are only argued for in black communities(most ridiculous thing i have ever heard).
6) More likely to be stopped by police if you are black contra white.

And on ad nauseum.

Generally, apart from 5)(i included that  point for the giggles, because its beyond nuts) these are the commandments within the movement itself, the various hashtags and slogans all come to these specific points.
Now, what we as outsiders should ask, is this true?

Well, not even close.

Black people do not get killed more the white people, black people dont recive extra attention by the police due to their skin tone. In situations where police draw weapons, statistics show that white people get shot in higher rates then black people, white people top the charts on arrests for speeding while a test done in a pre-dominantly black area showed that police actually stop less speeders then they should do.

Bottom line, every single statistic used is proven to be false, and not only does the movement not accept this, they become violent when you question it, the cop killings a few months back were not done by some "maniac", it was an ex-army soldier, and he was praised by supporters of this movement in thousands of tweets and posts.

You keep bringing up cause of death, why? Was the car racist? Are you seriously not detecting your faulty reasoning?

The cops and the institution they stand for are accused of racism, it is not the cops that print statistics showing that blacks kill blacks but its a reaponse to a charge of evil.
The cops have stated that the lack of numbers, money and the increase of hostility and crime combined with a rotten a-moral culture and poverty is a combination of causes that has caused the mess to reach such hights.

Now, add the condemnation from that sadistic, race-baiting demon of a woman(Hillary Clinton) and Obama, who speaks about a shooting that later turned out to be false...

This is what we mean with idiotic leadership.

I am not, and have never, been discussing BLM.  I have not expressed aN opinion on BLM.  I don't know anything about BLM.  I keep telling you this.  WHY DO YOU KEEP TELLING ME ABOUT BLM?

But you argue with the same mindset and even the same points as the movement itself, but fine, if you feel offended by this label, we can use you as a single person with ideas.
So can i now get a response to the above?

What do you mean I assume the mindset?

I can't really respond to the above post because I don't have an opinion on the truth of the claims you make.

I haven't fact checked whether you are representing BLM accurately, and I haven't fact checked any of the cases you are discussing.  I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion.

I do think that widespread disparities between groups can be significantly contributed to by subconscious, lazy assumptions, in the absence of conscious racial hatred.  And I think you said that you agree with that.  I don't know BLM's opinion about that question, but presumably they also agree.

I don't even know how organised a movement BLM is.  Is there a leadership? Does it have policy documents or produce reports or research?  I'm guessing it is just a cobbled together internet movement of all comers.  If so then I can almost guarantee that it is full of people who write ridiculous stuff and that many views will be awful.

I'm still struggling to see the relevance of whether or not BLM is an awful organisation.  I am sure that there are many hotheads on that side of the debate who make things worse.  I'm sure they all associate with BLM (since it seems to be the only movement around for them).  I have no idea what the overall "average" BLM supporter is like. 

I have however heard Shapiro speak.  And I have explained why I think his responses are dumb and driven by looking through the prism of race.  And that was related to the OP.  How citing true statistics can still be a sign of racism.

If it's any comfort I did read a little more about "Occupy"" when it was active and I got the impression that it was a total mess and full of idiots.  Did their stupidity make you decide that the banks didn't need regulating after all?  Hopefully not.
Life is a box of chocolates!

7

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Can facts be racist?
« Reply #82 on: October 08, 2016, 05:42:16 am »
This might be worth watching.  Please note that John Oliver doesn't use stats or assumes racial hatred.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaD84DTGULo
Life is a box of chocolates!