Rich dont pay enough but poor people dont pay any and people fine with that
- Thread starter slidecage
- Start date
[quote name='dohdough']Forgive my hyperbole, but if Lindsey Lohan was a black male, she'd be rotting in jail right now. Yeah, they might both get arrested and processed, but how they're treated and the punishment they received in the system couldn't be more different.
[/QUOTE]
Hyberbole? more like bull@$^. Forgive my hyperbole, but if it was a black nfl player or whatever the same bs you are using applies. The plain old white guy/gal will lose. Especially true for the NFL/NBA and felons. The "playing field is not always level".
Bad example dohdough.
[/QUOTE]
Hyberbole? more like bull@$^. Forgive my hyperbole, but if it was a black nfl player or whatever the same bs you are using applies. The plain old white guy/gal will lose. Especially true for the NFL/NBA and felons. The "playing field is not always level".
Bad example dohdough.
[quote name='Recycle']Hyberbole? more like bull@$^. Forgive my hyperbole, but if it was a black nfl player or whatever the same bs you are using applies. The plain old white guy/gal will lose. Especially true for the NFL/NBA and felons. The "playing field is not always level".
Bad example dohdough.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...that's my point, Pliskin. Try not to get yourself banned again.
edit: Since you aren't paying attention to what's going on and/or can't follow the conversation, Pottybrain was saying how the system is equal no matter who you are. I mean
, it's on this very goddamn page.
Bad example dohdough.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...that's my point, Pliskin. Try not to get yourself banned again.
edit: Since you aren't paying attention to what's going on and/or can't follow the conversation, Pottybrain was saying how the system is equal no matter who you are. I mean
, it's on this very goddamn page.[quote name='dohdough']Uhhh...that's my point, Pliskin. Try not to get yourself banned again.
edit: Since you aren't paying attention to what's going on and/or can't follow the conversation, Pottybrain was saying how the system is equal no matter who you are. I mean, it's on this very goddamn page.[/QUOTE]
ugh umm I was never banned and don't know wth you are talking about.
Moving on, Your example was a crappy one at best and that was my point.
Justice is not always equal and for any reasons. It isn't just racism and it is not a thing of the past and never will be but that works more than one way. It isn't just exclusive to two races or even white to black.
It isn't as enormous as some make it out to be either. The variables are many as are the circumstances and people involved.
There are many examples that can easily be found to point out an imperfect justice system.
btw GBA sunk himself on that one
edit: Since you aren't paying attention to what's going on and/or can't follow the conversation, Pottybrain was saying how the system is equal no matter who you are. I mean
, it's on this very goddamn page.[/QUOTE]ugh umm I was never banned and don't know wth you are talking about.
Moving on, Your example was a crappy one at best and that was my point.
Justice is not always equal and for any reasons. It isn't just racism and it is not a thing of the past and never will be but that works more than one way. It isn't just exclusive to two races or even white to black.
It isn't as enormous as some make it out to be either. The variables are many as are the circumstances and people involved.
There are many examples that can easily be found to point out an imperfect justice system.
btw GBA sunk himself on that one
You did it. You "got another one" (or however I saw it worded in one of the past threads). I don't think I'll be posting in or reading vs. mode much in the future. I was under the assumption this was for civilized point/counterpoint discussions. I looked around and now see the hypocrisy and maturity here with the name calling, twisting of words, unrelated connections, close-mindedness, lack of empathy and general vitriol of most of the comments here. It's my fault, I should have read up on the past threads before jumping into your little community of selfish utopian pipe dreamers.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='PottyPops']You did it. You "got another one" (or however I saw it worded in one of the past threads). I don't think I'll be posting in or reading vs. mode much in the future. I was under the assumption this was for civilized point/counterpoint discussions. I looked around and now see the hypocrisy and maturity here with the name calling, twisting of words, unrelated connections, close-mindedness, lack of empathy and general vitriol of most of the comments here. It's my fault, I should have read up on the past threads before jumping into your little community of selfish utopian pipe dreamers.[/QUOTE]
Later, skater.
Later, skater.
I thought we had this discussion dohdough.
The whole system putting minorities away more often or longer than whites statistic wrongly takes as fact that all else remains equal. All else does not remain equal, there are a thousand other factors that determine why people get the results they get in court.
Studies that quote this statistic only compare the charges and the race. You can't take out all of those other factors and still be scientific. Those additional factors may or may not have an impact on most of those cases.
This isn't to say there isn't racism in the system, and some people get the shaft but you tote around this stat as if it proves something.
The whole system putting minorities away more often or longer than whites statistic wrongly takes as fact that all else remains equal. All else does not remain equal, there are a thousand other factors that determine why people get the results they get in court.
Studies that quote this statistic only compare the charges and the race. You can't take out all of those other factors and still be scientific. Those additional factors may or may not have an impact on most of those cases.
This isn't to say there isn't racism in the system, and some people get the shaft but you tote around this stat as if it proves something.
[quote name='dohdough']
You know GBAstar, you're a real piece of shit...and I mean that with the utmost contempt.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Slavery Existed in the United States. Pre 1865. Let me introduce you to a word called progress.
Thank you for adding shock value to the thread and helping to explain why their is such a high occurence of miniority children being raised in a household that is not made up by both the biological mom and dad. Hopefully you can respond with information that is relevant to a time period of when say then United States had 50 stars on its flag.
But thank you again for reminding me that black people were slaves in the United States.
You know GBAstar, you're a real piece of shit...and I mean that with the utmost contempt.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Slavery Existed in the United States. Pre 1865. Let me introduce you to a word called progress.
Thank you for adding shock value to the thread and helping to explain why their is such a high occurence of miniority children being raised in a household that is not made up by both the biological mom and dad. Hopefully you can respond with information that is relevant to a time period of when say then United States had 50 stars on its flag.
But thank you again for reminding me that black people were slaves in the United States.
[quote name='PottyPops']You did it. You "got another one" (or however I saw it worded in one of the past threads). I don't think I'll be posting in or reading vs. mode much in the future. I was under the assumption this was for civilized point/counterpoint discussions. I looked around and now see the hypocrisy and maturity here with the name calling, twisting of words, unrelated connections, close-mindedness, lack of empathy and general vitriol of most of the comments here. It's my fault, I should have read up on the past threads before jumping into your little community of selfish utopian pipe dreamers.[/QUOTE]
Look bub, just because you don't see the connections, doesn't mean they aren't there. We can see folks like you coming a mile away at this point. You call yourself a Christian? Bullshit my friend, bullshit. You're just another so-called christian that doesn't even understand their own religion.
Oh and the lack of empathy part, now there is farce.
Look bub, just because you don't see the connections, doesn't mean they aren't there. We can see folks like you coming a mile away at this point. You call yourself a Christian? Bullshit my friend, bullshit. You're just another so-called christian that doesn't even understand their own religion.
Oh and the lack of empathy part, now there is farce.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']Look bub, just because you don't see the connections, doesn't mean they aren't there. We can see folks like you coming a mile away at this point. You call yourself a Christian? Bullshit my friend, bullshit. You're just another so-called christian that doesn't even understand their own religion.
Oh and the lack of empathy part, now there is farce.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing Pottypot means well, he's just stupid.
Oh and the lack of empathy part, now there is farce.
[/QUOTE]I'm guessing Pottypot means well, he's just stupid.
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Oh my! I hope the forum can handle the backlash I'm going to get from this one. C'mon Doh, don't let me down. Hehehehehehehehehehehhee......
Oh my! I hope the forum can handle the backlash I'm going to get from this one. C'mon Doh, don't let me down. Hehehehehehehehehehehhee......
[quote name='Clak']Sigh, you all have some real issues. It's like in your desire to somehow make doh look bad you're showing how stupid you all really are.[/QUOTE]
Protip #1 by Clak:
Rather then participate in an argument just call other people stupid. That way you never have to present any fact based opinions and you can hang out with the cool crowd.
Protip #1 by Clak:
Rather then participate in an argument just call other people stupid. That way you never have to present any fact based opinions and you can hang out with the cool crowd.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
No, Clak's right. This thread ing sucks.
ing sucks.[quote name='GBAstar']Protip #1 by Clak:
Rather then participate in an argument just call other people stupid. That way you never have to present any fact based opinions and you can hang out with the cool crowd.[/QUOTE]
Facts? Why bother with facts when you all don't even know wtf they are. If i present you with a fact it isn't something you can deny or refute because it's a mothering fact, and yet that's exactly what you all do.
In short, I'm not wasting my time when I can spend it doing something I'd enjoy more, like ramming my head into a wall.
Rather then participate in an argument just call other people stupid. That way you never have to present any fact based opinions and you can hang out with the cool crowd.[/QUOTE]
Facts? Why bother with facts when you all don't even know wtf they are. If i present you with a fact it isn't something you can deny or refute because it's a mother
ing fact, and yet that's exactly what you all do.In short, I'm not wasting my time when I can spend it doing something I'd enjoy more, like ramming my head into a wall.
Who really is taking this forum seriously? I'll believe my bs, you believe yours. When I want to play make believe that I'm "politically savvy" and active in government, I'll come in here and argue a bit with the opposing side. That's all this is to EVERYONE on here. If you think that you are the exception or changing people's views then you are deluded. Personal experience trumps charts and stats every time. And with the ways every study and figure can be manipulated, I'd say that relying on personal experience and making your own conclusions is the safer bet. Just understand that the whole country may not be reflected in your slice of the world.
I also hope that I have not really upset anyone. Getting angry over opposing view points is like pissing in the wind. Getting people a little riled up is a guilty pleasure that I think we all enjoy.
I also hope that I have not really upset anyone. Getting angry over opposing view points is like pissing in the wind. Getting people a little riled up is a guilty pleasure that I think we all enjoy.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='egofed']When I want to play make believe that I'm "politically savvy" and active in government[/QUOTE] noone buys it. You're as ignorant as they come.
[quote name='egofed']Who really is taking this forum seriously? I'll believe my bs, you believe yours. When I want to play make believe that I'm "politically savvy" and active in government, I'll come in here and argue a bit with the opposing side. That's all this is to EVERYONE on here. If you think that you are the exception or changing people's views then you are deluded. Personal experience trumps charts and stats every time. And with the ways every study and figure can be manipulated, I'd say that relying on personal experience and making your own conclusions is the safer bet. Just understand that the whole country may not be reflected in your slice of the world.
I also hope that I have not really upset anyone. Getting angry over opposing view points is like pissing in the wind. Getting people a little riled up is a guilty pleasure that I think we all enjoy.[/QUOTE]Thanks for proving how stupid you are. Charts? Stats? Pfftt...
If that's how you really think then you'd be better off just staying out of politics of any kind, that includes voting.
I also hope that I have not really upset anyone. Getting angry over opposing view points is like pissing in the wind. Getting people a little riled up is a guilty pleasure that I think we all enjoy.[/QUOTE]Thanks for proving how stupid you are. Charts? Stats? Pfftt...
If that's how you really think then you'd be better off just staying out of politics of any kind, that includes voting.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']Thanks for proving how stupid you are. Charts? Stats? Pfftt...
If that's how you really think then you'd be better off just staying out of politics of any kind, that includes voting.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of something I read on reddit the other day: Arguing with people who ignore facts is like playing chess against a pigeon. No matter good you are at chess, the pigeon is just gonna knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and then strut around like it's victorious.
If that's how you really think then you'd be better off just staying out of politics of any kind, that includes voting.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of something I read on reddit the other day: Arguing with people who ignore facts is like playing chess against a pigeon. No matter good you are at chess, the pigeon is just gonna knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and then strut around like it's victorious.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Purple Flames']This reminds me of something I read on reddit the other day: Arguing with people who ignore facts is like playing chess against a pigeon. No matter good you are at chess, the pigeon is just gonna knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and then strut around like it's victorious.[/QUOTE]
:lol:
:lol:
[quote name='Clak']Thanks for proving how stupid you are. Charts? Stats? Pfftt...
If that's how you really think then you'd be better off just staying out of politics of any kind, that includes voting.[/QUOTE]
Yet when anyone else provides charts, or stats you argue the reliability, meaning, and interpretation of the stats like it's nobodys business.
If stats and charts are 100% factual and infallible, why do you all spend most of your time arguing against them?
Oh....wait just your statistics are factual. Gotcha! :lol:
[quote name='egofed']
I'm "politically savvy" and active in government, I'll come in here and argue a bit with the opposing side. That's all this is to EVERYONE on here.
[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what this is to everybody on this forum. Except they like to pretend they are superior intellectuals because they win an argument against slidecage. (Prime example of their delusion is Purple Flames last statement.) Otherwise they just call you stupid, and move on. Nothing is more hilarious than someone jumping the gun and calling someone stupid who clearly doesn't understand what you are saying and would probably agree with you if they just stopped to think about it. Which is what happened right now, they jumped the gun and called you an idiot and ridiculous to second guess statistics or (lol) charts.
Let's ask them this:
Clak,
Can statistics be misleading and/or misinformative?
Freaken hilarious. I love this forum.
If that's how you really think then you'd be better off just staying out of politics of any kind, that includes voting.[/QUOTE]
Yet when anyone else provides charts, or stats you argue the reliability, meaning, and interpretation of the stats like it's nobodys business.
If stats and charts are 100% factual and infallible, why do you all spend most of your time arguing against them?
Oh....wait just your statistics are factual. Gotcha! :lol:
[quote name='egofed']
I'm "politically savvy" and active in government, I'll come in here and argue a bit with the opposing side. That's all this is to EVERYONE on here.
[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what this is to everybody on this forum. Except they like to pretend they are superior intellectuals because they win an argument against slidecage. (Prime example of their delusion is Purple Flames last statement.) Otherwise they just call you stupid, and move on. Nothing is more hilarious than someone jumping the gun and calling someone stupid who clearly doesn't understand what you are saying and would probably agree with you if they just stopped to think about it. Which is what happened right now, they jumped the gun and called you an idiot and ridiculous to second guess statistics or (lol) charts.
Let's ask them this:
Clak,
Can statistics be misleading and/or misinformative?
Freaken hilarious. I love this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Purple Flames']This reminds me of something I read on reddit the other day: Arguing with people who ignore facts is like playing chess against a pigeon. No matter good you are at chess, the pigeon is just gonna knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and then strut around like it's victorious.[/QUOTE]
then peck out your eyes so you need obamacare
then peck out your eyes so you need obamacare
[quote name='Knoell']Yet when anyone else provides charts, or stats you argue the reliability, meaning, and interpretation of the stats like it's nobodys business.
If stats and charts are 100% factual and infallible, why do you all spend most of your time arguing against them?
Oh....wait just your statistics are factual. Gotcha! :lol:
That is exactly what this is to everybody on this forum. Except they like to pretend they are superior intellectuals because they win an argument against slidecage. Otherwise they just call you stupid, and move on. Nothing is more hilarious than someone jumping the gun and calling someone stupid who clearly doesn't understand what you are saying and would probably agree with you if they just stopped to think about it.
Let's ask them this:
Clak,
Can statistics be misleading and/or misinformative?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. If you provide a source and it doesn't support the theories presented by the talking heads immediately it is refuted as "Stormfront.. derp" "Faux news.. herpa" followed by a lot of "dog whistle/white knight/straw man... derp" accusations.
I have seen very little in the way of intelligent arguments to support that modern day racism is holding any race back---other then the "it's happening because I say it's happening" defense.
I've seen very little in the way of factual evidence to support the "welfare money isn't misappropriated" argument either.
I have seen a lot "I disagree with you--you're an idiot, jackass, piece of shit" and "wait... you still disagree with me? I'll show you (Ignorzzzzz)!"
If stats and charts are 100% factual and infallible, why do you all spend most of your time arguing against them?
Oh....wait just your statistics are factual. Gotcha! :lol:
That is exactly what this is to everybody on this forum. Except they like to pretend they are superior intellectuals because they win an argument against slidecage. Otherwise they just call you stupid, and move on. Nothing is more hilarious than someone jumping the gun and calling someone stupid who clearly doesn't understand what you are saying and would probably agree with you if they just stopped to think about it.
Let's ask them this:
Clak,
Can statistics be misleading and/or misinformative?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. If you provide a source and it doesn't support the theories presented by the talking heads immediately it is refuted as "Stormfront.. derp" "Faux news.. herpa" followed by a lot of "dog whistle/white knight/straw man... derp" accusations.
I have seen very little in the way of intelligent arguments to support that modern day racism is holding any race back---other then the "it's happening because I say it's happening" defense.
I've seen very little in the way of factual evidence to support the "welfare money isn't misappropriated" argument either.
I have seen a lot "I disagree with you--you're an idiot, jackass, piece of shit" and "wait... you still disagree with me? I'll show you (Ignorzzzzz)!"
[quote name='Knoell']Yet when anyone else provides charts, or stats you argue the reliability, meaning, and interpretation of the stats like it's nobodys business.
If stats and charts are 100% factual and infallible, why do you all spend most of your time arguing against them?
Oh....wait just your statistics are factual. Gotcha! :lol:
That is exactly what this is to everybody on this forum. Except they like to pretend they are superior intellectuals because they win an argument against slidecage. Otherwise they just call you stupid, and move on. Nothing is more hilarious than someone jumping the gun and calling someone stupid who clearly doesn't understand what you are saying and would probably agree with you if they just stopped to think about it. Which is what happened right now, they jumped the gun and called you an idiot and ridiculous to second guess statistics or (lol) charts.
Let's ask them this:
Clak,
Can statistics be misleading and/or misinformative?
Freaken hilarious. I love this forum.[/QUOTE]Nope, stats are not misleading in the least, numbers don't have an agenda, it's the people presenting them that can use them to mislead.
As for the rest, like i said, as fact is a fact, by definition it can't be argue with. I'll let that sink in a bit with regards to us questioning the legitimacy of some of your info. Here's a hint, sources matter you dumbshit.
edit- To be clear, I'm saying that your "facts" often come from unreliable sources.
If stats and charts are 100% factual and infallible, why do you all spend most of your time arguing against them?
Oh....wait just your statistics are factual. Gotcha! :lol:
That is exactly what this is to everybody on this forum. Except they like to pretend they are superior intellectuals because they win an argument against slidecage. Otherwise they just call you stupid, and move on. Nothing is more hilarious than someone jumping the gun and calling someone stupid who clearly doesn't understand what you are saying and would probably agree with you if they just stopped to think about it. Which is what happened right now, they jumped the gun and called you an idiot and ridiculous to second guess statistics or (lol) charts.
Let's ask them this:
Clak,
Can statistics be misleading and/or misinformative?
Freaken hilarious. I love this forum.[/QUOTE]Nope, stats are not misleading in the least, numbers don't have an agenda, it's the people presenting them that can use them to mislead.
As for the rest, like i said, as fact is a fact, by definition it can't be argue with. I'll let that sink in a bit with regards to us questioning the legitimacy of some of your info. Here's a hint, sources matter you dumbshit.
edit- To be clear, I'm saying that your "facts" often come from unreliable sources.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Nope, stats are not misleading in the least, numbers don't have an agenda, it's the people presenting them that can use them to mislead.
As for the rest, like i said, as fact is a fact, by definition it can't be argue with. I'll let that sink in a bit with regards to us questioning the legitimacy of some of your info. Here's a hint, sources matter you dumbshit.[/QUOTE]
You seriously put together three sentences? That is amazing!
You're graduating from just being DohDough's hype man!
Maybe next time you can put together a paragraph or two!
As for the rest, like i said, as fact is a fact, by definition it can't be argue with. I'll let that sink in a bit with regards to us questioning the legitimacy of some of your info. Here's a hint, sources matter you dumbshit.[/QUOTE]
You seriously put together three sentences? That is amazing!
You're graduating from just being DohDough's hype man!
Maybe next time you can put together a paragraph or two!
I'm not going to address this shit point point by point, but GBAstar you've proven that facts and history don't matter. Your callous remark about white men purposely separating black families actually happened...for hundreds of years. This is a fact. This is our country's history. You want to ignore that? Fine. But don't expect those of us that know better to.
Just because you worked with some poor kids from the ghetto doesn't mean you understand race and racism nor does it qualify you to even begin to posit any solutions.
If you want to keep throwing up strawman arguments, go ahead...and I'll burn down everyone of them. At least I'm not the one defending people throwing up overtly racist websites as legitimate sources; you are. Something to think about.
Just because you worked with some poor kids from the ghetto doesn't mean you understand race and racism nor does it qualify you to even begin to posit any solutions.
If you want to keep throwing up strawman arguments, go ahead...and I'll burn down everyone of them. At least I'm not the one defending people throwing up overtly racist websites as legitimate sources; you are. Something to think about.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Just because you worked with some poor kids from the ghetto doesn't mean you understand race and racism nor does it qualify you to even begin to posit any solutions.[/QUOTE]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...ul-ryan-did-nothing-at-soup-kitchen-photo-op/
Seems like there's alot of phony baloney going around these days. Who wants to bet GBAStar is equally full of shit. If it quacks like a Libertarian...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...ul-ryan-did-nothing-at-soup-kitchen-photo-op/
Seems like there's alot of phony baloney going around these days. Who wants to bet GBAStar is equally full of shit. If it quacks like a Libertarian...
[quote name='Clak']Nope, stats are not misleading in the least, numbers don't have an agenda, it's the people presenting them that can use them to mislead.
As for the rest, like i said, as fact is a fact, by definition it can't be argue with. I'll let that sink in a bit with regards to us questioning the legitimacy of some of your info. Here's a hint, sources matter you dumbshit.
edit- To be clear, I'm saying that your "facts" often come from unreliable sources.[/QUOTE]
A quarterback has 6 passes intercepted in a game.
How could this statistic be misleading to anyone looking at simply the "facts"?
As for the rest, like i said, as fact is a fact, by definition it can't be argue with. I'll let that sink in a bit with regards to us questioning the legitimacy of some of your info. Here's a hint, sources matter you dumbshit.
edit- To be clear, I'm saying that your "facts" often come from unreliable sources.[/QUOTE]
A quarterback has 6 passes intercepted in a game.
How could this statistic be misleading to anyone looking at simply the "facts"?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']A quarterback has 6 passes intercepted in a game.
How could this statistic be misleading to anyone looking at simply the "facts"?[/QUOTE]
Come on, how are we supposed to respond to this drivel? At least make a point.
I'd be fine with no conservatives or halfway-intelligent conservatives on this board, but all we have are hard-headed willfully ignorant anarcho-capitalists and teapartiers masquerading as independents.
How could this statistic be misleading to anyone looking at simply the "facts"?[/QUOTE]
Come on, how are we supposed to respond to this drivel? At least make a point.
I'd be fine with no conservatives or halfway-intelligent conservatives on this board, but all we have are hard-headed willfully ignorant anarcho-capitalists and teapartiers masquerading as independents.
confoosious
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 79 (99%)
[quote name='camoor']
DD is just posting on a VG forum, we're all big boys and girls here. You and con need to man up and grow a set. If you can't take losing the argument all the time then turn off Faux news, wake up, and find out what's really going on in the world.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty funny since I happen to be pretty liberal.
I know DD is just posting on a VG forum. Nobody is mistaking him for some sort of policy maker.
The point still stands: PETA takes something that most people agree with "cruelty to animals is bad" and bastardizes it to an extent where pretty much everyone hates them.
DD takes something that most people agree with "racism is bad" and goes way over the top with it.
I'm not sure how "growing a set" means anything here. Yeah, we're all big boys and i'm expressing my opinion that DD is the CAG VS version of peta. good enough?
DD is just posting on a VG forum, we're all big boys and girls here. You and con need to man up and grow a set. If you can't take losing the argument all the time then turn off Faux news, wake up, and find out what's really going on in the world.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty funny since I happen to be pretty liberal.
I know DD is just posting on a VG forum. Nobody is mistaking him for some sort of policy maker.
The point still stands: PETA takes something that most people agree with "cruelty to animals is bad" and bastardizes it to an extent where pretty much everyone hates them.
DD takes something that most people agree with "racism is bad" and goes way over the top with it.
I'm not sure how "growing a set" means anything here. Yeah, we're all big boys and i'm expressing my opinion that DD is the CAG VS version of peta. good enough?
DurbanBrown
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 61 (100%)
[quote name='confoosious']That's pretty funny since I happen to be pretty liberal.
I know DD is just posting on a VG forum. Nobody is mistaking him for some sort of policy maker.
The point still stands: PETA takes something that most people agree with "cruelty to animals is bad" and bastardizes it to an extent where pretty much everyone hates them.
DD takes something that most people agree with "racism is bad" and goes way over the top with it.
I'm not sure how "growing a set" means anything here. Yeah, we're all big boys and i'm expressing my opinion that DD is the CAG VS version of peta. good enough?[/QUOTE]
this works for me
I know DD is just posting on a VG forum. Nobody is mistaking him for some sort of policy maker.
The point still stands: PETA takes something that most people agree with "cruelty to animals is bad" and bastardizes it to an extent where pretty much everyone hates them.
DD takes something that most people agree with "racism is bad" and goes way over the top with it.
I'm not sure how "growing a set" means anything here. Yeah, we're all big boys and i'm expressing my opinion that DD is the CAG VS version of peta. good enough?[/QUOTE]
this works for me
[quote name='camoor']Come on, how are we supposed to respond to this drivel? At least make a point.
I'd be fine with no conservatives or halfway-intelligent conservatives on this board, but all we have are hard-headed willfully ignorant anarcho-capitalists and teapartiers masquerading as independents.[/QUOTE]
The point is Clak says that a statistic can only be misleading when presented to be misleading but in reality the only time a statistic is useful is when you interpret it.
Show me a statistic you guys have shown us that has not been interpreted to make a point, and I will agree with whatever you say, except that whatever you say will be interpreting the statistic to make your point.
Just because you say the quarterback sucks because you have a stat that he threw 6 interceptions in a game does not mean I am stupid for not agreeing with your point that the quarterback sucks. There are a whole lot of other factors that contribute to this determination than your statistic.
I'd be fine with no conservatives or halfway-intelligent conservatives on this board, but all we have are hard-headed willfully ignorant anarcho-capitalists and teapartiers masquerading as independents.[/QUOTE]
The point is Clak says that a statistic can only be misleading when presented to be misleading but in reality the only time a statistic is useful is when you interpret it.
Show me a statistic you guys have shown us that has not been interpreted to make a point, and I will agree with whatever you say, except that whatever you say will be interpreting the statistic to make your point.
Just because you say the quarterback sucks because you have a stat that he threw 6 interceptions in a game does not mean I am stupid for not agreeing with your point that the quarterback sucks. There are a whole lot of other factors that contribute to this determination than your statistic.
[quote name='confoosious']That's pretty funny since I happen to be pretty liberal.
I know DD is just posting on a VG forum. Nobody is mistaking him for some sort of policy maker.
The point still stands: PETA takes something that most people agree with "cruelty to animals is bad" and bastardizes it to an extent where pretty much everyone hates them.
DD takes something that most people agree with "racism is bad" and goes way over the top with it.
I'm not sure how "growing a set" means anything here. Yeah, we're all big boys and i'm expressing my opinion that DD is the CAG VS version of peta. good enough?[/QUOTE]
Yup, and moving on....
I know DD is just posting on a VG forum. Nobody is mistaking him for some sort of policy maker.
The point still stands: PETA takes something that most people agree with "cruelty to animals is bad" and bastardizes it to an extent where pretty much everyone hates them.
DD takes something that most people agree with "racism is bad" and goes way over the top with it.
I'm not sure how "growing a set" means anything here. Yeah, we're all big boys and i'm expressing my opinion that DD is the CAG VS version of peta. good enough?[/QUOTE]
Yup, and moving on....
I find it highly amusing and sad that those that know the very least about racism, racist or not despite leaning towards the former, seem to be the ones that feel that they should be the arbiters of what is deemed acceptable content when people talk about it.
Let's take confoosious for example. Rather than lecturing and chiding others on actual overt racism, he decides that his energy is better spent telling me, someone that actually challenges this shit, that I'm a farce because he doesn't like the way I talk about it. And because he doesn't like the way I talk about it, the content, regardless of it's veracity and accuracy, is null and void, rather than critically examining what I'm saying.
Well how about this confoosious: when you start challenging some of the more overt racism in this forum, then I'll back down. But until then, either deal with it or put me on ignore cause I'm going to keep challenging and naming it when it comes up.
Let's take confoosious for example. Rather than lecturing and chiding others on actual overt racism, he decides that his energy is better spent telling me, someone that actually challenges this shit, that I'm a farce because he doesn't like the way I talk about it. And because he doesn't like the way I talk about it, the content, regardless of it's veracity and accuracy, is null and void, rather than critically examining what I'm saying.
Well how about this confoosious: when you start challenging some of the more overt racism in this forum, then I'll back down. But until then, either deal with it or put me on ignore cause I'm going to keep challenging and naming it when it comes up.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dohdough']Well how about this confoosious: when you start challenging some of the more overt racism in this forum, then I'll back down. But until then, either deal with it or put me on ignore cause I'm going to keep challenging and naming it when it comes up.[/QUOTE]
I think you have to admit that your, shall we say, heavy-handed approach is not going to convince anybody who doesn't already believe you. In essence, I think people are saying that you preach to the choir.
The question that remains, then, is what is your goal? What do you hope to achieve, is it simply to identify racism and calling out my name? Or do you hope to help people identify racism within themselves, and help them actively seek to destroy it? Or is your goal something else entirely?
I don't necessarily have a problem with your approach, however I think other people are correct in thinking that you're a bit too belligerent times. Trust me, I'd rather actually be discussing racism than your personality. However, I think for the sake of all of us here, if we can understand where you're coming from and why you're coming from that angle, we can better understand the context of your conversation.
I think you have to admit that your, shall we say, heavy-handed approach is not going to convince anybody who doesn't already believe you. In essence, I think people are saying that you preach to the choir.
The question that remains, then, is what is your goal? What do you hope to achieve, is it simply to identify racism and calling out my name? Or do you hope to help people identify racism within themselves, and help them actively seek to destroy it? Or is your goal something else entirely?
I don't necessarily have a problem with your approach, however I think other people are correct in thinking that you're a bit too belligerent times. Trust me, I'd rather actually be discussing racism than your personality. However, I think for the sake of all of us here, if we can understand where you're coming from and why you're coming from that angle, we can better understand the context of your conversation.
[quote name='mykevermin']I think you have to admit that your, shall we say, heavy-handed approach is not going to convince anybody who doesn't already believe you. In essence, I think people are saying that you preach to the choir.[/QUOTE]
I see where you're coming from, but even a soft-handed approach won't convince anyone that doesn't want to be convinced regardless. Even then, am I really preaching to the choir? For most people in this forum, racism is an academic exercise or a thought experiment. Most people in general don't really even understand what racism actually is.
Let's take nasum's own fields of expertise for example. Even with demonstrating more than a layman's understanding of taxes, people still think he's full of shit and he doesn't even come close to my level of belligerence. Do you think he really convinces anyone? At least I know when I'm outclassed in knowledge.
By being "belligerent," I know I make myself a target and I'm fine with that, but no amount of hand-holding will change someone like confoosious' mind or help him understand racism better if he's more concerned with me acting like a "troll" when I call a racist aing racist.
I see where you're coming from, but even a soft-handed approach won't convince anyone that doesn't want to be convinced regardless. Even then, am I really preaching to the choir? For most people in this forum, racism is an academic exercise or a thought experiment. Most people in general don't really even understand what racism actually is.
Let's take nasum's own fields of expertise for example. Even with demonstrating more than a layman's understanding of taxes, people still think he's full of shit and he doesn't even come close to my level of belligerence. Do you think he really convinces anyone? At least I know when I'm outclassed in knowledge.
Why should I, just because I talk about racism, need to justify why I do it or how I do it when no one else needs to? Especially those that are actually being racist. Who else is being called out for it?
By being "belligerent," I know I make myself a target and I'm fine with that, but no amount of hand-holding will change someone like confoosious' mind or help him understand racism better if he's more concerned with me acting like a "troll" when I call a racist a
ing racist.[quote name='dohdough']
Let's take confoosious for example. Rather than lecturing and chiding others on actual overt racism,
[/QUOTE]
Let's take dohdough for example. Rather then lecturing all those on here about their obvious racism (IE clak and the others I have mentioned before) equally you only challenge those you choose to see as racist. You claim to be an expert on racism but can't see that your buds are the most racist people on here. So why is it that you only challenge those that do not have the same opinion on most things as you? An expert on racism and someone who is against it sooo much would challenge everyone equally in their racism. I wonder why it is you only see racism when it benefits your arguments or your pals. HMMM.
[quote name='dohdough']I find it highly amusing and sad that those that know the very least about racism, racist or not despite leaning towards the former, seem to be the ones that feel that they should be the arbiters of what is deemed acceptable content when people talk about it. [/QUOTE]
Mirror mirror on the wall...oh wait that is you. You are talking about yourself and you don't even realize it.
Let's take confoosious for example. Rather than lecturing and chiding others on actual overt racism,
[/QUOTE]
Let's take dohdough for example. Rather then lecturing all those on here about their obvious racism (IE clak and the others I have mentioned before) equally you only challenge those you choose to see as racist. You claim to be an expert on racism but can't see that your buds are the most racist people on here. So why is it that you only challenge those that do not have the same opinion on most things as you? An expert on racism and someone who is against it sooo much would challenge everyone equally in their racism. I wonder why it is you only see racism when it benefits your arguments or your pals. HMMM.
[quote name='dohdough']I find it highly amusing and sad that those that know the very least about racism, racist or not despite leaning towards the former, seem to be the ones that feel that they should be the arbiters of what is deemed acceptable content when people talk about it. [/QUOTE]
Mirror mirror on the wall...oh wait that is you. You are talking about yourself and you don't even realize it.
[quote name='Recycle']Let's take dohdough for example. Rather then lecturing all those on here about their obvious racism (IE clak and the others I have mentioned before) equally you only challenge those you choose to see as racist. You claim to be an expert on racism but can't see that your buds are the most racist people on here. So why is it that you only challenge those that do not have the same opinion on most things as you? An expert and racism activist would challenge everyone equally in their racism. I wonder why it is you only see racism when it benefits your arguments or your pals. HMMM.[/quote]
Talk is cheap. Compare and contrast.
Talk is cheap. Compare and contrast.
Show me how.
dodough, don't take this the wrong way but my general impression of reading your posts is that you think most everyone (99.5%?) is racist and you can find it anywhere and everywhere if you look hard enough. I guess I can't dismiss the possibility of you being "right" all of the time though, however unlikely.
/racist post
/racist post
rac·ism (r
s
z
m)n.1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Doh labelled me a racist for quoting stats about welfare population percentages from a blog that I linked off of a google search. I double checked that the stats were taken from an actual gov study straight from the .gov site. Doh says the blog is overtly racist and therefore I'm guilty by association. I'm not offended by his accusation because I look at the source.
Doesn't that second definition make all those who support and defend affirmative action, diversity, and quotas racists?
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Doh labelled me a racist for quoting stats about welfare population percentages from a blog that I linked off of a google search. I double checked that the stats were taken from an actual gov study straight from the .gov site. Doh says the blog is overtly racist and therefore I'm guilty by association. I'm not offended by his accusation because I look at the source.
Doesn't that second definition make all those who support and defend affirmative action, diversity, and quotas racists?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dohdough']Why should I, just because I talk about racism, need to justify why I do it or how I do it when no one else needs to? Especially those that are actually being racist. Who else is being called out for it?[/QUOTE]
Because I'm curious. That's all. I think it would help - I'm not seeking justification, I'm looking for knowledge to satisfy my curiosity.
Because I'm curious. That's all. I think it would help - I'm not seeking justification, I'm looking for knowledge to satisfy my curiosity.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
For the record, I'd like to say that this board, since I first began visiting it a couple years ago, helped me form a lot of my opinions, of which I had few, mostly leaning right due to a mindless religious upbringing. So saying that no minds were changed or affected is not quite true.
Some of you may or may not have been preaching to the choir, but I decided to listen in anyway.
Some of you may or may not have been preaching to the choir, but I decided to listen in anyway.
[quote name='Javery']dodough, don't take this the wrong way but my general impression of reading your posts is that you think most everyone (99.5%?) is racist and you can find it anywhere and everywhere if you look hard enough. I guess I can't dismiss the possibility of you being "right" all of the time though, however unlikely.
/racist post[/QUOTE]
Let's put it this way: let's assume that everyone is racist, so focusing on racism on an individual level is meaningless as a way to try and lessen it's effects. You'd then need to look at in a more systemic way to see why everyone is racist. We need to figure out what about the system socializes people in this way. This is too simple of an answer for my tastes, but my answer to egofed will fill in some gaps. This is assuming "everyone" means everyone and not "everyone"=whites. This distinction is important when talking about racism.
[quote name='egofed']rac·ism (r
s
z
m)n.1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.[/quote]
Racism is a form of oppression. Oppression requires systemic and institutional power. Therefore, people of color cannot be racist in a system where whites, specifically white males, have the most institutional power. This doesn't not mean people of color can't be prejudiced.
. It's on page 18.
[quote name='renique46']I see Pliskin is back.[/QUOTE]
You're late to that party, man.:lol:
/racist post
[/QUOTE]Let's put it this way: let's assume that everyone is racist, so focusing on racism on an individual level is meaningless as a way to try and lessen it's effects. You'd then need to look at in a more systemic way to see why everyone is racist. We need to figure out what about the system socializes people in this way. This is too simple of an answer for my tastes, but my answer to egofed will fill in some gaps. This is assuming "everyone" means everyone and not "everyone"=whites. This distinction is important when talking about racism.
[quote name='egofed']rac·ism (r
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.[/quote]
Racism is a form of oppression. Oppression requires systemic and institutional power. Therefore, people of color cannot be racist in a system where whites, specifically white males, have the most institutional power. This doesn't not mean people of color can't be prejudiced.
I already explained why you're a racist
. It's on page 18. No. Or would you like to go on a rant about White Entertainment Television or White History Month?
[quote name='renique46']I see Pliskin is back.[/QUOTE]
You're late to that party, man.:lol:
confoosious
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 79 (99%)
Here's the thing about racists on an online forum: you're not gonna change their minds. Are racists a bunch of dumb s who I wouldn't be friends with in real life? yes. Do I think that throwing around terms like neo-conservative-but-right-of-the-left-retro-discriminatory-neo-mccarthy-blah-blah-blah is going to make that racist NOT give a black guy a job because he's black? Nope.
1) I'd prefer no racists on CAG. And I often point out to mods anti-semitic or racist things in the deals forum because I really don't want to hear their stupid bullshit.
2) DD- You don't want no racists on CAG, you just want to yell at them.
See the difference?
s who I wouldn't be friends with in real life? yes. Do I think that throwing around terms like neo-conservative-but-right-of-the-left-retro-discriminatory-neo-mccarthy-blah-blah-blah is going to make that racist NOT give a black guy a job because he's black? Nope. 1) I'd prefer no racists on CAG. And I often point out to mods anti-semitic or racist things in the deals forum because I really don't want to hear their stupid bullshit.
2) DD- You don't want no racists on CAG, you just want to yell at them.
See the difference?
bread's done