Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#652 Oct 24 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


Me: What's your favorite meal?

You: Ribeye Steak.

Me: No, because I'm specifically wanting to know your favorite complete meal, not your favorite piece of meat, vegetable, fruit, etc.. So, what's your favorite meal?

You: I answered your question.


.



Jophiel wrote:
Perhaps instead of asking what makes the "black civil right" struggle like it and deciding it's not special enough to compare, you can just ask what makes it like the "civil rights" struggle.


This isn't an answer. This is a proposal of me asking a different question. Key words "Instead" and "can".

Given the fact that he said "Ok, so that's actually my original response " contradicts his previous statement, "I've answered the "Marrying toasters/cats/kids" strawman enough times already. Go back and re-read my answers and pretend I'm saying them now." And that's ignoring the fact that I didn't mention a toasters/cats/kids strawman.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#653 Oct 24 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was an answer; it was apparently an answer over your head though. Can't help you there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#654 Oct 24 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
That's a response, not an answer. Red isn't answer to how old you old. I asked you a very specific question and you responded with a suggestion.

You really can't be such a sore loser.... You initially implied that I didn't see any struggle as a civil rights unless there was slavery, which is evident that you didn't read my post. That's why you responded with "cats/toasters/kids", because you were referencing to a completely different argument. Now you're trying to pretend that you somehow switched arguments in between responses...Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#655 Oct 24 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not sure if you think calling me a sore loser is supposed to make me change my answer or what but my current answer already addresses your question adequately.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#656 Oct 24 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
I'm not sure if you think stating that your response was an answer is supposed to make me think that you answered my question, but the reality of you not answering the question remains.

No where in that statement did you answer my question, you proposed a different question. Do you not know what the word "instead" means? Let me help you out.


1. as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something: We ordered tea but were served coffee instead.

2.in preference; as a preferred or accepted alternative: The city has its pleasures, but she wished instead for the quiet of country life.


I call you a sore loser because that's what you are. Lately, when you get "in a corner", you say "eh", "oh well" or some other lame cop out. In all cases, you will spend time repeating yourself, then all of the sudden, you don't have the time to repeat yourself, even though you continue to do so.

Your comment of several times was in reference to toaster love as said in the same sentence. So by "toaster" you meant "aboriginals"? Interesting.....

Note: My posts are this long not for you, but for the other readers who don't know what's going on.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#657 Oct 24 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not saying "oh well", I'm pointing out that I answered your question. And +1'ing as well now, I suppose. You can keep huffing and saying I didn't or you can find a new tact. Maybe try comprehension since the toaster remark wasn't in reply to your "Black civil rights" question.

Haha... this took like a million edits. Damned Swype keyboard and autocorrect.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 6:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#658 Oct 24 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Holy Crap! This thread went south fast.

I.. Um... Claim victory in this thread. Cause I won. Yes. That's it! Magic pixie dust declares me the winnar! Yay!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#659 Oct 24 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Holy Crap! This thread went south fast.

Mid-August?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#660 Oct 24 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not saying "oh well", I'm pointing out that I answered your question. And +1'ing as well now, I suppose. You can keep huffing and saying I didn't or you can find a new tact. Maybe try comprehension since the toaster remark wasn't in reply to your "Black civil rights" question.

Haha... this took like a million edits. Damned Swype keyboard and autocorrect.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 6:50pm by Jophiel


Almalieque wrote:
Lately, when you get "in a corner", you say "eh", "oh well" or some other lame cop out. In all cases, you will spend time repeating yourself, then all of the sudden, you don't have the time to repeat yourself, even though you continue to do so.



"lately" vs "in all cases". One is absolute and one isn't. Yet another example of your comprehension failure. You're really not helping your case.

Ok, humor me more.. Explain to me how your response answers my question. If you were serious, which you aren't, then the only other logical explanation is that you misunderstood my question as you have demonstrated as such in your previous post.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#661 Oct 24 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was a demonstration of how incredibly flawed your question's premise is. When you can rephrase your question so it's not nonsensical, you'll get a better answer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#662 Oct 24 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Holy Crap! This thread went south fast.

Mid-August?


That's entirely possible. I still claim victory though. At this point, it's just as productive, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#663 Oct 24 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I claimed victory earlier, so no. You're late to the victory party.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#664 Oct 24 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It was a demonstration of how incredibly flawed your question's premise is. When you can rephrase your question so it's not nonsensical, you'll get a better answer.


By a "better answer" do you mean "an answer"? Your own statement implies that you didn't answer my question because it was worded wrong. When in reality, I worded my question to make a point that would become apparent if you actually answered the question.

So, when I said that there was no difference between Black civil rights and women's rights, the trails of tears, Japanese Americans during WWII, early European immigrants, etc/ in reference to civil rights, the fact that you inferred "slavery was a requirement in order to be called a civil rights" was at fault of me?Smiley: lol

Ok, let me rephrase it again..

If A = B and B = C, how does A not equal C? Please explain.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#665 Oct 24 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Give it another shot. Your second question doesn't match your first.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#666 Oct 24 2012 at 6:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Yes it does. It's exactly the same basis. If you think not, please explain how it isn't. You're just proving my point....Smiley: lol
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#667 Oct 24 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A doesn't equal B.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#668 Oct 24 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
That doesn't explain how it doesn't match my question because I didn't define A,B or C. A could be "Native American", B could be "U.S aboriginals" and C could be "American Indian". In that scenario, A does equal B. It's your job to explain to me how it doesn't match my question.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#669 Oct 24 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When someone cuts me a check, it'll be my job. If you think I'm going to create cognizant and coherent arguments on your behalf, you're insane. That's your problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#670 Oct 24 2012 at 7:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Jophiel wrote:
When someone cuts me a check, it'll be my job. If you think I'm going to create cognizant and coherent arguments on your behalf, you're insane. That's your problem.


Smiley: lol YET ANOTHER example of your poor comprehension. I didn't ask you to create an argument for me. I asked you to explain how my previous abbreviated question didn't match my original question. You claimed that my abbreviated question didn't match because A != B. That isn't on my behalf because you're the one making the accusation, unless you're down with making statements with no substance. If that's the case, then I was right all along.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#671 Oct 24 2012 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: grin
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#672 Oct 24 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
**
487 posts
Screenshot
.
#673 Oct 26 2012 at 4:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
How is black civil rights like homosexual civil rights?

Last century in most countries: Homosexuality was illegal. Not all known homosexuals were prosecuted and jailed, but the ones living freely on the streets did so without most rights. For example, people beating a homosexual to death, to hospital, to disfigurement or disability were not prosecuted, since the homosexual was seen to be fair game.

Homosexuality was grounds for instant dismissal from a job.
Homosexuals were automatically at high risk of being blackmailed, with their entire lives on the line. thus homosexuality was an automatic security risk. The homosexual was not protected by the law in cases of being blackmailed.
Homosexuality was grounds for refusal to rent or sell a property to.
Walking around, taking public transport, or going to a public place such as a restaurant, pub, theatre or cinema, as a known homosexual was illegal, since you should be in jail. As a suspected homosexual, it was just a very, very dangerous risk to your psychological and physical health.

I'm not sure about America, but these legal and cultural states of homosexuals were only very slowly dismantled over the last century in Britain and Australia. I believe the state of Tasmania only legalised homosexuality a decade or three ago.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 6:16am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#674Almalieque, Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 5:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The comparison is US Black civil rights and US homosexual civil rights, not world wide. Every part of the world had some form of slavery, but not all slavery was the same in every country. In certain middle eastern countries, it is illegal for two people of the opposite **** to make contact in public, kiss, talk to, etc., unless it's your family. People of the same **** freely kiss each other as greetings and hold hands as they walk down the street. Those same actions would be deemed "homosexual" in other countries. So you can't make a fair comparison on struggles and civil rights from two or more different countries and/or cultures.
#675 Oct 26 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,754 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If A = B and B = C, how does A not equal C? Please explain.


Once you set C equal to B then A can be reassigned to something else. At that point A won't equal C again unless you loop back over the preceding lines. Smiley: schooled

What? I'm learning. Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#676 Oct 26 2012 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison is US Black civil rights and US homosexual civil rights

The comparison should be miscegenation laws vs SSM laws or black workplace discrimination vs **** workplace discrimination or **** partner inheritance rights vs women's inheritance rights.

Trying to broaden it to entire spheres invites disqualifying it via irrelevant differences. Talking about slavery or bus seats when discussing SSM is like saying the Boy Scouts **** abuse scandal doesn't compare to the Roman Catholic Church **** abuse scandal because, you know, Crusades. And transubstantiation. And the Gospels vs The Jungle Book. And neckerchiefs. And pocket knifes.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 9:24am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#677 Oct 26 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison is US Black civil rights and US homosexual civil rights

The comparison should be miscegenation laws vs SSM laws or black workplace discrimination vs **** workplace discrimination or **** partner inheritance rights vs women's inheritance rights.

Trying to broaden it to entire spheres invites disqualifying it via irrelevant differences. Talking about slavery or bus seats when discussing SSM is like saying the Boy Scouts **** abuse scandal doesn't compare to the Roman Catholic Church **** abuse scandal because, you know, Crusades. And transubstantiation. And the Gospels vs The Jungle Book. And neckerchiefs. And pocket knifes.


Smiley: laugh

Oh, that's what's going on here, eh? It's tough to pick up the beat when Alma's posts don't show.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#678 Oct 26 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,902 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison is US Black civil rights and US homosexual civil rights

The comparison should be miscegenation laws vs SSM laws or black workplace discrimination vs **** workplace discrimination or **** partner inheritance rights vs women's inheritance rights.

Trying to broaden it to entire spheres invites disqualifying it via irrelevant differences. Talking about slavery or bus seats when discussing SSM is like saying the Boy Scouts **** abuse scandal doesn't compare to the Roman Catholic Church **** abuse scandal because, you know, Crusades. And transubstantiation. And the Gospels vs The Jungle Book. And neckerchiefs. And pocket knifes.


Smiley: laugh

Oh, that's what's going on here, eh? It's tough to pick up the beat when Alma's posts don't show.
That beat you struggle with, it's the collective head pounding on a wall.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#679 Oct 26 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,754 posts
It's kinda catchy.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#680 Oct 26 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison is US Black civil rights and US homosexual civil rights

The comparison should be miscegenation laws vs SSM laws or black workplace discrimination vs **** workplace discrimination or **** partner inheritance rights vs women's inheritance rights.

Trying to broaden it to entire spheres invites disqualifying it via irrelevant differences. Talking about slavery or bus seats when discussing SSM is like saying the Boy Scouts **** abuse scandal doesn't compare to the Roman Catholic Church **** abuse scandal because, you know, Crusades. And transubstantiation. And the Gospels vs The Jungle Book. And neckerchiefs. And pocket knifes.


Smiley: laugh

Oh, that's what's going on here, eh? It's tough to pick up the beat when Alma's posts don't show.
That beat you struggle with, it's the collective head pounding on a wall.


Smiley: banghead
Smiley: banghead
Smiley: banghead
Smiley: banghead
Smiley: banghead
Smiley: banghead
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#681 Oct 26 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Unce unce unce unce unce unce.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#682 Oct 26 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,902 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Unce unce unce unce unce unce.

You're singing along?

Smiley: lol
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#683 Oct 26 2012 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,754 posts
[:tapdance:]
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#684 Oct 26 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Unce unce unce unce unce unce.
Boots'n'cats'n'boots'n'cats.
____________________________
Banh
#685 Oct 26 2012 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I'm dancin'. I'M DANCIN'.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#686 Oct 26 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison is US Black civil rights and US homosexual civil rights

The comparison should be miscegenation laws vs SSM laws or black workplace discrimination vs **** workplace discrimination or **** partner inheritance rights vs women's inheritance rights.

Trying to broaden it to entire spheres invites disqualifying it via irrelevant differences. Talking about slavery or bus seats when discussing SSM is like saying the Boy Scouts **** abuse scandal doesn't compare to the Roman Catholic Church **** abuse scandal because, you know, Crusades. And transubstantiation. And the Gospels vs The Jungle Book. And neckerchiefs. And pocket knifes.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 9:24am by Jophiel


I'm arguing against what others say. That's what people compare to. Arip's post was VERY general and not specific to marriage in any sense imaginable.

So, you agree that there is no comparison between US Black civil rights and homosexual civil rights?
That's a start..

So, now let's compare SSM laws vs miscegenation. There is no comparison here as well. The only similarities are the fundamental necessities that make them discrimination, but the type of discrimination and the reasons are completely different.

As I said, miscegenation is an attack on restrictions adhering to the fundamental union of marriage (man and a woman) to prevent mixed children and preserve a specific "pure" race (a mentality that is still blatant in East Asia). Furthermore, it wasn't and still isn't a common practice ( Black/white marriages) in comparison to other marriage percentages. Most people tend to marry people of their own race.

While SSM is an attack on redefining the fundamental union of marriage (man and a woman). When and if appealed, it will be taken advantage by a large percentage of same **** couples as it is the primary concern.

It goes back to my previous statement, if "B" is closer to "A" than "C" and "C" is close to "A", then how is "C" not close to "B"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#687 Oct 26 2012 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, you agree that there is no comparison between US Black civil rights and homosexual civil rights?

Obviously not since I already mentioned areas where they had shared traits. That's not to say they are completely analogous.

Quote:
So, now let's compare SSM laws vs miscegenation. There is no comparison here as well.

As noted previously, the courts disagree with you. You can dismiss that if you'd like but, since the courts and not you will ultimately decide this issue, I'll stick with the people who are relevant.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 8:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#688 Oct 26 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
if "B" is closer to "A" than "C" and "C" is close to "A", then how is "C" not close to "B"?

Jophiel wrote:
As noted previously, the courts disagree with you. You can dismiss that if you'd like but, since the courts and not you will ultimately decide this issue, I'll stick with the people who are relevant.


So, if Obamacare gets approved, then obviously everyone must agree with it and it's absolute. If abortion becomes illegal AGAIN, the obviously abortion is evil and everyone will cave in and support it, because deep down inside, they also believe it.

According to your logic, SSM shouldn't be recognized because currently the government doesn't recognize it. They made their decision, so why are you fighting? It's not "right" until the court agrees with you? So, when the tables are turned will you believe the same or will you think that it's now "absolute"?

If this nation weren't so divided on issues then you might would have had a point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#689 Oct 26 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, if Obamacare gets approved, then obviously everyone must agree with it and it's absolute. If abortion becomes illegal AGAIN, the obviously abortion is evil and everyone will cave in and support it, because deep down inside, they also believe it.

Nope and nope.

Quote:
According to your logic, SSM shouldn't be recognized because currently the government doesn't recognize it.

No, according to my logic, SSM isn't recognized because currently the government doesn't recognize it. However they do recognize the precedent of miscegenation laws being applicable to SSM.

It's valid for me to work to change the former. It's valid for you to work to change the latter. It's not valid for either of us to say these things don't count because we don't like their current state.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#690Almalieque, Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 8:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) if "B" is closer to "A" than "C" and "C" is close to "A", then how is "C" not close to "B"?
#691 Oct 26 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,844 posts
Almalieque wrote:
if "B" is closer to "A" than "C" and "C" is close to "A", then how is "C" not close to "B"?


Like this:


B-------------------------------------------------A--C
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#692 Oct 26 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
B isn't closer to A than C in your example. Unless you're in Bizarro world.

Edited, Oct 27th 2012 5:33am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#693 Oct 26 2012 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,844 posts
Almalieque wrote:
B isn't closer to A than C in your example. Unless you're in Bizarro world.

Edited, Oct 27th 2012 5:33am by Almalieque


B-------------------------------------------------A--C

B-------------------------------------------------A
B-----------------------------------------------------C

B is closer to A than C.

A--C

A is close to C

B-----------------------------------------------------C

B is not close to C
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#694 Oct 26 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Maybe alma should invest in a measuring tape. that and basic counting skills. don't worry, we'll wait.

Edited, Oct 26th 2012 10:52pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#695 Oct 26 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,844 posts
Even if we go this route:

B-----A------C

A-----B
A------C

B is closer to A than C is.

A------C

A is close to C

B--------------C

B is not close to C (No matter how you choose to define "close" you can always move them to make B and C outside that range.)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#696 Oct 27 2012 at 2:59 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Looking in from the outside it's wonderful the way so many Americans are still subconsciously racist. Especially so many African Americans, who seem to like to ghettoise themselves. Watching TV with black only performers. Watching/listening to black only musicians. Deriding other blacks who swim in the mainstream culture, or who are high achievers in areas outside a narrow band of "acceptable" black fields of activity. And not looking outside their own race for romance.

In Australia there are a heck of a lot of whites. But of all our many many minorities, the majority of them wind up in relationships outside their own ethnic/racial/subculture/religious group. Including getting into relationships with whites, or with ethnics that are their "enemies" back in the "home country". A lot of first generation migrants are married-in. Second generation Australians who come from insular ethnicities and who have been sent to private religious schools also tend to marry in. But as soon as a child gets sent to a non-religious, or state school, the whole marrying-in thing flies out the window, except for coincidental proximity occurrences.

I'm not saying Australia is free of racism, because we're not. A lot of us are very racist. But we seem to be doing a lot better on the issues of no-go zones, and cross-race relationships and families. I seem to remember a question on our census that asks: "list up to 5 of your national heritages." Most of us have grandparents that span wildly diverse nationalities or national heritages. Even I, who is white as white can be, got to pick and choose amongst my most relevant rival Western European and British heritages.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#697 Oct 27 2012 at 5:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,253 posts
Screenshot


/thread
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#698Almalieque, Posted: Oct 27 2012 at 5:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There's a reason why Jophiel didn't answer the question. He's smarter than you. Give up, you will only make a fool of yourself.
#699 Oct 27 2012 at 6:06 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Arip wrote:
Looking in from the outside it's wonderful the way so many Americans are still subconsciously racist. Especially so many African Americans, who seem to like to ghettoise themselves. Watching TV with black only performers. Watching/listening to black only musicians. Deriding other blacks who swim in the mainstream culture, or who are high achievers in areas outside a narrow band of "acceptable" black fields of activity. And not looking outside their own race for romance.


Media != reality. Unfortunately, the media plays a major role on how others see you; however it isn't accurate. I see this as I travel the world. When people see me, they think what they see on T.V. and its embarrassing, but that's part of life.

According to the media, all blacks in Africa live in huts half naked starving with flies on them. I don't recall ever seeing any black urban shots of Africa. Everything you see is either in the jungle, Arab violence or in huts. With Arab Africa, you only see people shooting each other and violence. So, when people see the media, that's all they think Africa is.


Arip wrote:
I'm not saying Australia is free of racism, because we're not. A lot of us are very racist. But we seem to be doing a lot better on the issues of no-go zones, and cross-race relationships and families. I seem to remember a question on our census that asks: "list up to 5 of your national heritages." Most of us have grandparents that span wildly diverse nationalities or national heritages. Even I, who is white as white can be, got to pick and choose amongst my most relevant rival Western European and British heritages.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#700 Oct 27 2012 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,844 posts
There's a reason why you didn't reply to my second example which also took into account that interpretation of the "B is closer to A than C".

Edited, Oct 27th 2012 8:08am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#701 Oct 27 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Media != reality. Unfortunately, the media plays a major role on how others see you; however it isn't accurate. I see this as I travel the world. When people see me, they think what they see on T.V. and its embarrassing, but that's part of life.

According to the media, all blacks in Africa live in huts half naked starving with flies on them. I don't recall ever seeing any black urban shots of Africa. Everything you see is either in the jungle, Arab violence or in huts. With Arab Africa, you only see people shooting each other and violence. So, when people see the media, that's all they think Africa is.

Maybe according to the media you watch. Or the media available in the USA. The media window into Africa from Australia is MUCH more diverse than that, especially according to the more serious Foreign Correspondent documentaries/current affairs programmes on the TV and radio.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Elinda, someproteinguy, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (59)