Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#302 Mar 07 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
I'm not driving 60 minutes to get my peanut butter when I can just hit up the white folks 2 minutes away.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#303 Mar 07 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Kachi wrote:
Yes, but this was clarified simply via PM some time ago. I also admitted that I wasn't especially clear, because I generally try not to invest much (at least not more than amuses me) in explaining things to gbaji. I would wager gbaji remains alone in his failure to comprehend it.


This is where your secrets have brought us, Wilhelm.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#304 Mar 07 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm not driving 60 minutes to get my peanut butter when I can just hit up the white folks 2 minutes away.


But if you don't, then that makes you a RACIST!!!!!

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn.......
#305 Mar 07 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm not driving 60 minutes to get my peanut butter when I can just hit up the white folks 2 minutes away.


But if you don't, then that makes you a RACIST!!!!!

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn.......
I'm ok with that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#306 Mar 07 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm not driving 60 minutes to get my peanut butter when I can just hit up the white folks 2 minutes away.


But if you don't, then that makes you a RACIST!!!!!

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn.......
I'm ok with that.


hmmp, well I got nothing...
#307 Mar 07 2011 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:


We really do ***** over black people in this country. But not in the ways and not for the reasons most people assume. And IMO the very ideas that Alma tosses out there are part of the problem, not the solution. Those ideas perpetuate the differences between racial groups, and make it harder for any of them to ever catch up. The biggest cause of racism is not the racial labeling and different treatment applied to minorities by others, but the labels and different treatment they apply to themselves. The solution is to stop doing that. Stop labeling yourself as a minority group. Stop thinking you need to focus on race as a means of furthering yourself. Stop thinking as a member of a group and suck it up. We all got along just fine when you simply tended to our crops and nursed our young'uns.

Geesh, why do I even skim gb's posts. Must be my love of Epic-fantasy fiction.

...anyways, ftfy.





Edited, Mar 7th 2011 8:31pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#308 Mar 07 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Elinda wrote:
So according to gbaji white peeps should only shop at stores owned by blacks.

Here's the rest:

Black peeps shop at stores owned by Orientals, and Orientals should only shop at stores owned by Latinos and Latinos should only shop at stores owned by Indians.

K, is everone clear where they'll be buying their peanut butter?


I'm not really sure who owns Food City. =(
#309 Mar 07 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
So according to gbaji white peeps should only shop at stores owned by blacks.

Here's the rest:

Black peeps shop at stores owned by Orientals, and Orientals should only shop at stores owned by Latinos and Latinos should only shop at stores owned by Indians.

K, is everone clear where they'll be buying their peanut butter?


Is that in reference to India's Indians or Native Americans? o.O
#310 Mar 07 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
So according to gbaji white peeps should only shop at stores owned by blacks.

Here's the rest:

Black peeps shop at stores owned by Orientals, and Orientals should only shop at stores owned by Latinos and Latinos should only shop at stores owned by Indians.

K, is everone clear where they'll be buying their peanut butter?


Is that in reference to India's Indians or Native Americans? o.O
Indians. But maybe Persians would have been a better term.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#311 Mar 07 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
So according to gbaji white peeps should only shop at stores owned by blacks.

Here's the rest:

Black peeps shop at stores owned by Orientals, and Orientals should only shop at stores owned by Latinos and Latinos should only shop at stores owned by Indians.

K, is everone clear where they'll be buying their peanut butter?


Is that in reference to India's Indians or Native Americans? o.O
Indians. But maybe Persians would have been a better term.


Because of my previous interactions with Indians, when I come across the term "Indian", that's what I think. I've later realized that not everyone thinks that and often still refer to Native Americans as Indians....

Often confuses me...

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 11:22pm by Almalieque
#312 Mar 07 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Kachi wrote:
Yes, but this was clarified simply via PM some time ago. I also admitted that I wasn't especially clear, because I generally try not to invest much (at least not more than amuses me) in explaining things to gbaji. I would wager gbaji remains alone in his failure to comprehend it.


Sigh. Got nothing else, do you?

I understood exactly what you were saying. As I have repeatedly stated, I don't agree with what you are saying. I know that it's a common fallacy to assume that if someone doesn't agree with you, it must be because they don't understand what you're talking about, but that's because of your own need to avoid examining your own position. Don't push that on me.

"Fair" and "Equitable" do not mean that the outcomes are equal. I already explained this to you. What you want isn't a fair or equitable system, but rather a system which equalizes the outcomes. I understand that perfectly. You seem to be confused about it because you want to use the wrong words to describe what you're doing (and there's a whole long explanation as to why you do that, but I'll spare you this time).

I do not agree with the belief that outcomes should be equal, much less that the government should step in and make them equal. If two people go to work and put in the same effort, I do not believe they should be paid the same amount. I believe that how much they get paid should be based on the value their labor has to someone else. So if what one person does is more valuable to his employer, he'll get paid more. And yes, this is subjective. But the alternative has so many downsides that it's still better to do it this way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#313 Mar 07 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Racist, funny or who cares?



Is now definately in the realms of 'who cares', imo.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#314 Mar 07 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I know that it's a common fallacy to assume that if someone doesn't agree with you, it must be because they don't understand what you're talking about


Then state my position and why you disagree. You first said that you disagreed with me, then agreed with me after I explained it to you, then you said that you disagree with me again. All of this while I haven't changed my position.
#315 Mar 07 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I know that it's a common fallacy to assume that if someone doesn't agree with you, it must be because they don't understand what you're talking about


Then state my position and why you disagree.


The problem you are having is that you make statements which clearly indicate you believe in "X", but when someone argues against "X", you insist that's not what you believe.

I disagree with the notion that the skin color of the person(s) you are benefiting should be a factor when deciding what stores to frequent, what films to watch, who to hire, how much to pay people, etc.

Quote:
You first said that you disagreed with me, then agreed with me after I explained it to you, then you said that you disagree with me again.


Because you said something that indicated that you do believe that skin colors should be taken into account when making those decisions (specifically that minorities should help out other minorities). When I said that I didn't agree, you proceeded to spend 3 pages insisting that it wasn't really about race, all the while continuing to use the same racial language. When you finally said something I agreed with (that skin color should not be a consideration), you continued to insist that this was what you'd been saying all along, when it clearly wasn't.

You also seem confused about what you actually believe in and are falling back on rhetoric instead of founding your position on principle.

Quote:
All of this while I haven't changed my position.


I'm quite sure it hasn't. Let me take a wild stab at it: You believe that past injustices by white people against minorities (especially black and latino) justify providing those groups special benefits in order to balance those injustices out. You are perfectly OK with unequal treatment of people (both by private citizens and the government) based on their skin color as long as that unequal treatment helps out those minority groups.

The problem is that you also agree with the basic principle that racial discrimination is wrong (or at least understand that others view it as wrong). So this puts you in the awkward position of having to try to argue *for* a racially discriminatory position while making it appear as though you don't support racial discrimination. And that's why you'll spend pages trying to justify your initial statements by trying to insist that most of someone's community, or friends, or family will be of the same race, so it's not really racial discrimination to say that they should "help out" people of their own race.



That about sum it up?

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 3:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#316 Mar 07 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
Racist, funny or who cares?


Is now definately in the realms of 'who cares', imo.

For some unknown reason I keep poking into this thread, wondering what's going on in here. I keep forgetting that I don't really care.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#317 Mar 07 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The problem you are having is that you make statements which clearly indicate you believe in "X", but when someone argues against "X", you insist that's not what you believe.


Well for starters, that's false..

Gbaji wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the skin color of the person(s) you are benefiting should be a factor when deciding what stores to frequent, what films to watch, who to hire, how much to pay people, etc.


Did you completely miss me complaining about people voting in the 2008 presidential election based on skin color and ***?

Are you going to keep insisting to avoid my question on China Towns, Little Tokyo's, Asia Supermarkets, etc? The more you avoid this question, the more it becomes obvious that you really don't believe in what you say, only in reference to black people.

I just ate dinner at a MEXICAN restaurant, which was next to a MEXICAN grocery store for MEXICAN food (as stated on the door) with MEXICAN people as customers in a community of MEXICANs.

There is a difference between supporting person x because of their race vs supporting person x who is a specific race that provides you services and products typically not provided by other services.

Are you honestly telling me that if you went to a nice sit down Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Ethiopian, etc. restaurant and the entire staff were white Americans, that you wouldn't slightly question their authenticity? That's not to say that they can't make the food, but this notion that race has absolutely NO factor is just as silly as the notion that race is the biggest factor.

This is why you can't tell the difference between a Chinese movie vs an American movie with Chinese actors and how the spoken language is a determining factor.

Gbaji wrote:
Because you said something that indicated that you do believe that skin colors should be taken into account when making those decisions (specifically that minorities should help out other minorities). When I said that I didn't agree, you proceeded to spend 3 pages insisting that it wasn't really about race, all the while continuing to use the same racial language. When you finally said something I agreed with (that skin color should not be a consideration), you continued to insist that this was what you'd been saying all along, when it clearly wasn't.

You also seem confused about what you actually believe in and are falling back on rhetoric instead of founding your position on principle.


So basically, you misread my point and aren't man enough to just admit that you were wrong for 3 pages. K, got it.

Gbaji wrote:

I'm quite sure it hasn't. Let me take a wild stab at it: You believe that past injustices by white people against minorities (especially black and latino) justify providing those groups special benefits in order to balance those injustices out. You are perfectly OK with unequal treatment of people (both by private citizens and the government) based on their skin color as long as that unequal treatment helps out those minority groups.


False.

First, I've asked you several times to name these "legal benefits". If you're going to talk about these benefits as the source of your argument, you should clearly say what they are.

I believe that unequal treatment will NOT help minorities in the long run but hinder minorities as these "benefits" can be taken away at any time. I believe the best thing for minority groups is to just start from scratch and work their way up and the only way that this can happen is from support from their communities, not solely based because of their skin color, but their location.

This is what you failed to grasp. Maybe in your communities everyone is diverse, heck my community is diverse, but as I stated, the emphasis isn't on these "good communities", but the poor black communities. You are only strong as your weakest link, therefore the push is for business, peace and overall success to arise from those areas. While you insist to live in la-la land, the grown folks are going to say stuff like "Black people" and "Black x", because in those scenarios, that's exactly what they are.

Gbaji wrote:
The problem is that you also agree with the basic principle that racial discrimination is wrong (or at least understand that others view it as wrong). So this puts you in the awkward position of having to try to argue *for* a racially discriminatory position while making it appear as though you don't support racial discrimination. And that's why you'll spend pages trying to justify your initial statements by trying to insist that most of someone's community, or friends, or family will be of the same race, so it's not really racial discrimination to say that they should "help out" people of their own race.


Again, your failure of comprehension is not my fault. I spent 3 pages on you because you were insisting something that I was never arguing. I was never in a awkward position, because I've always argued that discrimination is never inherently wrong. Just like most of your girlfriends were probably white, you racially discriminated against ever other race female that you particularly didn't date. The same is probably true with your friends. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

You're just trying to create this fictional discomfort zone for me in order to make you seem logical.


Gbaji wrote:
That about sum it up?


As predicted, you are completely off. You first came off as the exception to my original claim that white people (not all) in these situations are just complaining when the favor isn't on their side, but now I see, you too fit in that category.

Your entire argument is based on preventing minorities independent power because you fear change in regards to white people in regards to social status. This is why when Asians and Hispanics do the same exact thing in my examples mentioned (Asian supermarkets,Asian restaurants, Asian communities, etc.), it doesn't bother you, because you don't see them as a threat to the positive "white power". On the other hand, you see black Americans as a positive threat given the current momentum.

This is why you have this silly notion of "forget about the past, let's just hold hands and do business together", so that way white people will ALWAYS stay on top as demonstrated in my race analogy. Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with working together, but what is silly is this notion of "forgetting the past". This simply can't be done as the present is an everyday reminder of the past and it has become evident that you just don't understand how or why.

Finally, your failure to address most of my comments that are directly related to your very own arguments is evident of that. Either that or you have succumbed to trolling.
#318 Mar 07 2011 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I just ate dinner at a MEXICAN restaurant, which was next to a MEXICAN grocery store for MEXICAN food (as stated on the door) with MEXICAN people as customers in a community of MEXICANs.

There is a difference between supporting person x because of their race vs supporting person x who is a specific race that provides you services and products typically not provided by other services.


Yes. Which is why I have absolutely no problem with that. I've said this over and over, but you keep trying to come back to this as though it's relevant.


Do you understand that this is completely different than saying that black people should shop at black owned stores because if they don't then no one else will? Do you see how it's also different than saying that minorities should help out other minorities? But that's what you said originally! Remember?

Those are the statements I disagree with. And those are *not* the same as someone buying Mexican food at a Mexican restaurant because he's hungry for tacos. They are someone buying food at a Mexican restaurant because it's owned by a Mexican and they want to financially help him out instead of someone else.

Get it? Until you grasp that those are different motivations for doing the same thing, you're kinda doomed to keep arguing this in circles endlessly. Seriously. Do you understand that those are not the same thing? It's funny because you say the words "these are different", but then you say the thing you claim not to be saying, and then defend it by insisting that it's the same as saying the other.

Then, when I point out that you are doing this, you insist that those are two different things again. It's bizarre as ****.

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 7:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Mar 07 2011 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The problem is that you also agree with the basic principle that racial discrimination is wrong (or at least understand that others view it as wrong). So this puts you in the awkward position of having to try to argue *for* a racially discriminatory position while making it appear as though you don't support racial discrimination. And that's why you'll spend pages trying to justify your initial statements by trying to insist that most of someone's community, or friends, or family will be of the same race, so it's not really racial discrimination to say that they should "help out" people of their own race.


Again, your failure of comprehension is not my fault. I spent 3 pages on you because you were insisting something that I was never arguing. I was never in a awkward position, because I've always argued that discrimination is never inherently wrong.


Then why have you spent so much time insisting that you weren't saying that a black person should choose to help out a black owned business purely because it'll benefit another black person?

If you believe this (and you clearly do), and you said it (which you did), then why do you keep dancing away from it? Why spend pages trying to twist the words around? At least Kachi is honest about what he believes and why. You can't even do that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#320 Mar 07 2011 at 9:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Just to drive this point home:

Almalieque wrote:
There is a difference between supporting person x because of their race vs supporting person x who is a specific race that provides you services and products typically not provided by other services.


There's a difference, but you think both are perfectly acceptable if the person doing this is a minority, right? Isn't that what you just said? You don't (always) have a problem with racial discrimination, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#321 Mar 07 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
What are these "legal benefits" that you keep referring to?

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which is why I have absolutely no problem with that. I've said this over and over, but you keep trying to come back to this as though it's relevant.


Do you understand that this is completely different than saying that black people should shop at black owned stores because if they don't then no one else will? Do you see how it's also different than saying that minorities should help out other minorities? But that's what you said originally! Remember?


Do you understand that wasn't the comparison that I was making? You commented that part of the problem is minorities labeling themselves, yet in these examples, they are labeling themselves. They aren't saying "food", but "Mexican Food". Why do you have a problem with "Black food" but not "Mexican food"? Or why do you have a problem with "Black music" but not "Hispanic music"?

My original argument was addressed by YOUR notion that part of the problem was labels. This wasn't MY argument, but YOUR argument. I simply countered YOUR argument by questioning why you accept one and not the other. You can't then turn around and say that it had nothing to do with my original statement, because if it didn't, then why do you keep bringing up labels as being part of the problem?

Do you understand that I'm merely questioning YOUR response to my argument? So if my question isn't relevant, then neither is your comment on labels, because that's exactly what I'm questioning.

The comparison that I *think* you were trying to make is that those services would not exist (for the most part) if those minority groups did not provide them.

Once again, you're twisting scenarios to match your argument. In my examples of black business that wouldn't exist without black support, I mentioned magazines, hair products, movies, clothes etc., not black owned stores, unless it consists of the aforementioned products. You're trying to paint this picture of two identical stores, one owned by a white person and the other owned by a black person, and me suggesting to support the black guy simply because he's black. I've argued against that notion numerous times.

Gbaji wrote:
Those are the statements I disagree with. And those are *not* the same as someone buying Mexican food at a Mexican restaurant because he's hungry for tacos. They are someone buying food at a Mexican restaurant because it's owned by a Mexican and they want to financially help him out instead of someone else.


Once again, it was in reference to your argument in labels. At the same time, you haven't addressed "Little Tokyo's" or "China Towns".. Do they offend you? You can't possibly deny the fact these areas are "for the Asians". After doing a little wiki-research, if it weren't for the Japanese involvements in WW2, there would have been much more official J-Towns in the U.S.

Quote:
Get it? Until you grasp that those are different motivations for doing the same thing, you're kinda doomed to keep arguing this in circles endlessly. Seriously. Do you understand that those are not the same thing? It's funny because you say the words "these are different", but then you say the thing you claim not to be saying, and then defend it by insisting that it's the same as saying the other.


Then, when I point out that you are doing this, you insist that those are two different things again. It's bizarre as ****.


Well, once you realize that I was replying to YOUR argument that labels is part of the problem, which were your comments in response to my problem and NOT me making a comparison to my argument, then we can move on.

Do you understand now? So how is labels part of the problem, if you don't have any problem with any other minority group labeling themselves?

#322 Mar 07 2011 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just to drive this point home:

Almalieque wrote:
There is a difference between supporting person x because of their race vs supporting person x who is a specific race that provides you services and products typically not provided by other services.


There's a difference, but you think both are perfectly acceptable if the person doing this is a minority, right? Isn't that what you just said? You don't (always) have a problem with racial discrimination, right?


Are you completely ignoring my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election? Is your goal to keep trying to project your fictional arguments unto me so you can be right?
#323 Mar 07 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The problem is that you also agree with the basic principle that racial discrimination is wrong (or at least understand that others view it as wrong). So this puts you in the awkward position of having to try to argue *for* a racially discriminatory position while making it appear as though you don't support racial discrimination. And that's why you'll spend pages trying to justify your initial statements by trying to insist that most of someone's community, or friends, or family will be of the same race, so it's not really racial discrimination to say that they should "help out" people of their own race.


Again, your failure of comprehension is not my fault. I spent 3 pages on you because you were insisting something that I was never arguing. I was never in a awkward position, because I've always argued that discrimination is never inherently wrong.


Then why have you spent so much time insisting that you weren't saying that a black person should choose to help out a black owned business purely because it'll benefit another black person?

If you believe this (and you clearly do), and you said it (which you did), then why do you keep dancing away from it? Why spend pages trying to twist the words around? At least Kachi is honest about what he believes and why. You can't even do that.


Umm. *** marriage threads, DADT threads.. were you there at all?

Unlike other people, I stay consistent. There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. That holds true for ***, race, skin color, sexuality, religion, nationality,height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc. That's part of life and to pretend that it somehow is, is nothing more than denial of society.

As I keep mentioning with significant others, people have preferences that includes a combination of the aforementioned traits and discriminate against others who don't meet that criteria.

So, please, quit trying to turn this around as if I'm "dancing around" and just man up and admit that you were wrong. You misinterpreted my stance and instead of just admitting that you were arguing against an argument that you made up, you want to pretend that I'm thinking one thing but saying something else.

I do have to admit, that is the most clever way I've seen for not admitting that you were wrong.
#324 Mar 07 2011 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
"Fair" and "Equitable" do not mean that the outcomes are equal. I already explained this to you. What you want isn't a fair or equitable system, but rather a system which equalizes the outcomes. I understand that perfectly. You seem to be confused about it because you want to use the wrong words to describe what you're doing (and there's a whole long explanation as to why you do that, but I'll spare you this time).


This is hilarious, because it shows that you actually DON'T understand what I was saying. I admit I was just trolling you a bit there, but in attempting to state my point in your own words, as is often a measure of comprehension, you demonstrated that you actually don't comprehend.

Fabulous. This goes a long way towards determining whether you're legitimately unintelligent or willfully ignorant.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#325 Mar 08 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
"Fair" and "Equitable" do not mean that the outcomes are equal. I already explained this to you. What you want isn't a fair or equitable system, but rather a system which equalizes the outcomes. I understand that perfectly. You seem to be confused about it because you want to use the wrong words to describe what you're doing (and there's a whole long explanation as to why you do that, but I'll spare you this time).


This is hilarious, because it shows that you actually DON'T understand what I was saying. I admit I was just trolling you a bit there, but in attempting to state my point in your own words, as is often a measure of comprehension, you demonstrated that you actually don't comprehend.


Really? You're going to play this game now too?

Ok. How about instead of insisting that I don't understand what you're saying, you actually write it in a single clear paragraph? Because I'm pretty sure that whatever you write down will end out being exactly what I assumed you meant from the beginning.


What you are mistaking for me "not comprehending" your position is actually me applying your position to situations which you either avoid thinking about, or have never considered before. That's me understanding your position better than you btw. You just haven't thought the whole thing through, so when I present counters that you didn't consider you assume I don't understand you. That's simply not the case though.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 1:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#326 Mar 08 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Alma? How the **** did you manage to write three posts and fail to address what I said in even a single one of them.

It's not about what you buy, or where. It's about why you buy it. I thought I was incredibly clear about this. If you buy dinner at a Mexican food restaurant because you want to eat Mexican food, there's nothing wrong with that. If you buy dinner at that restaurant because it's owned by a Mexican and you want to help out Mexicans financially, then there is something wrong with that.

Can you grasp this? You keep ignoring the case I'm saying is wrong, and want to argue endlessly about the ones I have no problem with. Can you address the case I'm actually talking about?


Yes or no: It is wrong for a black person to choose to do business at a black owned business solely to help out a black person financially. When answering, pretend that there are no other relevant conditions. The owner is not a relative, or a friend, and there's no community aspect (let's pretend you're in another part of town).

Yes or no? I say that this is wrong. Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that it's ok for the black person to "help a brother out", so to speak?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (42)