Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Is it impossible to be white and a criminal?
You'd have thought so by the indignation that some people feel when they are pulled out for a random search in airports.
http://
Look at the responses - 'the humilation I felt', 'the indignity of a pat down search, all to ensure security staff aren't seen as racist.
Should airport security focus their efforts exclusively on black and Muslim travellers? Should white travellers queue in a separate lane to everyone else? s
Perhaps a form of airport apartheid?
http://
Look at the responses - 'the humilation I felt', 'the indignity of a pat down search, all to ensure security staff aren't seen as racist.
Should airport security focus their efforts exclusively on black and Muslim travellers? Should white travellers queue in a separate lane to everyone else? s
Perhaps a form of airport apartheid?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Barcelonic29-
You say, “...please refrain from your continued insistence on painting a portrayal of me who has opnely [sic] accused others of being racist, or from putting words in my mouth because you fail to identify the specificity of words I use...”.
May I remind you once again that you have also stated, “... Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race...”.
No matter how insistent you are in claiming that you haven't accused someone of racism, your own post proves your subsequent claim to be false. I fail to see how you can continue to claim otherwise.
You continue, “... I would really like to discuss these issues further with you and other issues too... [Your] views are a refreshing contrast to those usually expressed in philosophy forums...” and, “...If you decide to dismiss me here rather than allow me to counter your claims in a forum where I am not character-restricted...”
As far as I understand it, this is a forum and we are debating. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'character-restricted'. Can you elaborate?
You further state, “... Please suspend whatever misplaced hatred you feel toward me and give me the chance to explain the fallacy of your logic in an arena where such discussion belongs...”
I can only speak for myself but I certainly don't hate you. Whatever gave you that idea? I simply do not agree with the conclusions you have reached regarding the issues or race and religion. As far as letting you explain the 'fallacy' of my logic – be my guest. This is a discussion forum and at this moment in time I have no intention of joining another one in order to continue to expand upon the exact same debate that we are already having here.
I find your desperation for me/us to register on another website slightly peculiar. What is your motivation in doing so? Do you feel that you cannot say what you want to say on AB?
You say, “...please refrain from your continued insistence on painting a portrayal of me who has opnely [sic] accused others of being racist, or from putting words in my mouth because you fail to identify the specificity of words I use...”.
May I remind you once again that you have also stated, “... Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race...”.
No matter how insistent you are in claiming that you haven't accused someone of racism, your own post proves your subsequent claim to be false. I fail to see how you can continue to claim otherwise.
You continue, “... I would really like to discuss these issues further with you and other issues too... [Your] views are a refreshing contrast to those usually expressed in philosophy forums...” and, “...If you decide to dismiss me here rather than allow me to counter your claims in a forum where I am not character-restricted...”
As far as I understand it, this is a forum and we are debating. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'character-restricted'. Can you elaborate?
You further state, “... Please suspend whatever misplaced hatred you feel toward me and give me the chance to explain the fallacy of your logic in an arena where such discussion belongs...”
I can only speak for myself but I certainly don't hate you. Whatever gave you that idea? I simply do not agree with the conclusions you have reached regarding the issues or race and religion. As far as letting you explain the 'fallacy' of my logic – be my guest. This is a discussion forum and at this moment in time I have no intention of joining another one in order to continue to expand upon the exact same debate that we are already having here.
I find your desperation for me/us to register on another website slightly peculiar. What is your motivation in doing so? Do you feel that you cannot say what you want to say on AB?
@birdie
That first quote of mine is NOT am implication of racism. It's like this:
Person A: "I like meat but not vegetables"
Person B:"So you like meat but not vegetables; how about you Person 3?"
Person 3:"I prefer vegetables myself"
Above you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg!! They are only summarasing what has been said.
I've always seen the AB as a place to ask/answer quick questions to share your areas of knowledge with others areas of knowledge. There is a 4000-letter restriction on every post and the layout is very different from your typical discussion forum. If this is not painstakingly obvious to you then perhaps you're not a member of a discussion forum.
So Birdie I apologise if you use AB as a serious discussion board, but I don't think most AB users do. I love AB but I don't ever use it to debate issues or have lenghty discussions - this would be a first for me on here.
Now that each post is reaching a sizable character-count, I propose we hand the OP his thread back and move the discussion, that is all. But that part was in reference to Naomi's views that you need to know the race of a person to be a racist; i see little point in continuing this only to discuss the definition of any word, let alone one as debatable as 'racism'.
And if both AB and the OP are happy to have this continue on here that is fine. The fact you find my request peculiar is another indication you do not frequent discussion forums all that regularly. Whenever a debate arises from a post WHICH IS NOT MINE i try to be polite and move it to another thread. In this case, because it is AB and not a discussion board, I asked to change to somewhere these debates are more welcome. It is simply politeness and so if you find that peculiar I honestly cannot understand why. It is something I do ALL the time in such situations whenever I feel there is a chance the other person may agree to a move.
If you feel there is some other motive for this please come out and say it Birdie. And you wonder why I feel you're not representing me fairly!?!
Birdie now is your c hance to get to the "crux" of this debate right here: please counter my "conclusion" that it is racist even if you do not know the specific race...
Something I've been wanting to ask you specifically Birdie (as it relates to the post which drew you into this debate) is this: when you read my post citing the UN source, did you believe at the time or at any time that I posted that link unaware 'religion' was not included? Do you think, or did you think, that I cited in error or hurt my argument without realising?
The reason I ask is because your first post which followed that seemed to jump on religion as though I didn't know it wasn't cited! Why would I post that unless I thought it helped my argument?!? Please answer this honestly, because of all assumptions I may have made throughout about yourself or Naomi - this is the one I'm most sure of.
That first quote of mine is NOT am implication of racism. It's like this:
Person A: "I like meat but not vegetables"
Person B:"So you like meat but not vegetables; how about you Person 3?"
Person 3:"I prefer vegetables myself"
Above you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg!! They are only summarasing what has been said.
I've always seen the AB as a place to ask/answer quick questions to share your areas of knowledge with others areas of knowledge. There is a 4000-letter restriction on every post and the layout is very different from your typical discussion forum. If this is not painstakingly obvious to you then perhaps you're not a member of a discussion forum.
So Birdie I apologise if you use AB as a serious discussion board, but I don't think most AB users do. I love AB but I don't ever use it to debate issues or have lenghty discussions - this would be a first for me on here.
Now that each post is reaching a sizable character-count, I propose we hand the OP his thread back and move the discussion, that is all. But that part was in reference to Naomi's views that you need to know the race of a person to be a racist; i see little point in continuing this only to discuss the definition of any word, let alone one as debatable as 'racism'.
And if both AB and the OP are happy to have this continue on here that is fine. The fact you find my request peculiar is another indication you do not frequent discussion forums all that regularly. Whenever a debate arises from a post WHICH IS NOT MINE i try to be polite and move it to another thread. In this case, because it is AB and not a discussion board, I asked to change to somewhere these debates are more welcome. It is simply politeness and so if you find that peculiar I honestly cannot understand why. It is something I do ALL the time in such situations whenever I feel there is a chance the other person may agree to a move.
If you feel there is some other motive for this please come out and say it Birdie. And you wonder why I feel you're not representing me fairly!?!
Birdie now is your c hance to get to the "crux" of this debate right here: please counter my "conclusion" that it is racist even if you do not know the specific race...
Something I've been wanting to ask you specifically Birdie (as it relates to the post which drew you into this debate) is this: when you read my post citing the UN source, did you believe at the time or at any time that I posted that link unaware 'religion' was not included? Do you think, or did you think, that I cited in error or hurt my argument without realising?
The reason I ask is because your first post which followed that seemed to jump on religion as though I didn't know it wasn't cited! Why would I post that unless I thought it helped my argument?!? Please answer this honestly, because of all assumptions I may have made throughout about yourself or Naomi - this is the one I'm most sure of.
Barcelonic29 -
I don't think I've ever come across anyone quite so obtuse as yourself before. Conversing with you is akin to nailing the proverbial jelly to the proverbial wall. I'm almost in awe of your ability to obfuscate an argument. Almost.
I'll be as brief as I can.
I am not going to debate this matter with you on any other forum than AB. If you find that unsatisfactory then so be it.
As for your request, “... please counter my "conclusion" that it is racist even if you do not know the specific race... Person A: "I like meat but not vegetables"; Person B:"So you like meat but not vegetables; how about you Person 3?"; Person 3:"I prefer vegetables myself... Above you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg!! They are only summarising what has been said.”
I shall not be attempting to counter your analogy for the very obvious reason that it is a straw man. You have rather clumsily created a hypothetical scenario which doesn't reflect the nature of Naomi's position nor my own. You have invented it. It is spurious. I would suggest that you go back and re-read the exchanges between yourself and Naomi. I think you'll find (if you're honest with yourself) that you have seriously misunderstood a great deal and have deliberately misinterpreted several statements to arrive at your illogical conclusion and hence, your illogical analogy.
As for not being able to go back a retrospectively edit posts to correct 'mistakes' on AB, I consider that to be a positive thing. I can fully understand why you find it unsatisfactory.
I don't think I've ever come across anyone quite so obtuse as yourself before. Conversing with you is akin to nailing the proverbial jelly to the proverbial wall. I'm almost in awe of your ability to obfuscate an argument. Almost.
I'll be as brief as I can.
I am not going to debate this matter with you on any other forum than AB. If you find that unsatisfactory then so be it.
As for your request, “... please counter my "conclusion" that it is racist even if you do not know the specific race... Person A: "I like meat but not vegetables"; Person B:"So you like meat but not vegetables; how about you Person 3?"; Person 3:"I prefer vegetables myself... Above you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg!! They are only summarising what has been said.”
I shall not be attempting to counter your analogy for the very obvious reason that it is a straw man. You have rather clumsily created a hypothetical scenario which doesn't reflect the nature of Naomi's position nor my own. You have invented it. It is spurious. I would suggest that you go back and re-read the exchanges between yourself and Naomi. I think you'll find (if you're honest with yourself) that you have seriously misunderstood a great deal and have deliberately misinterpreted several statements to arrive at your illogical conclusion and hence, your illogical analogy.
As for not being able to go back a retrospectively edit posts to correct 'mistakes' on AB, I consider that to be a positive thing. I can fully understand why you find it unsatisfactory.
Birdie says:
Above you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg!! They are only summarising what has been said.” "
That was exactly my point! Goodness how you've misunderstood!!
Person 2 is akin to myself - you stated i was making an implication; I was using that analogy to explain why I was not implying a thing - only reiterating what Naomi had said herself.
And then you go as far as to call me obtuse when you've clearly misunderstood or you wouldn't be trying to make the point I JUST MADE your own.
I utterly resent the straw man implication because my anaology not only made perfect sense but it was logically relevant. Analogies are like my signature - I use them often and wisely to simplify logic. If you believe in this case it's confused the logic or is illogical please at least explain.
Birdie you do seem to have a knack for irritating me. Let me try to make it a little clearer so perhaps finally somebody else can be "honest" with themselves (as I already have been - I previously admitted I was wrong about the definition and Naomi did not).
But you seem to think I posted the UN link unaware it did not contain religion. I'm afraid Birdie that if AB is the place you come to make lengthy discussion posts then so be it, but I discuss important issues daily and come on AB on occasion (each to their own) and I assure you in no other such forum I use would I expect somebody to miss that entirely, yet both yourself and Naomi did.
The UN link hurt my argument as much as it did Naomi's - so I admitted IN THAT POST we were both wrong, and went on to argue that there is no clear definition of race.
Still with me?
Naomi believed it was a must to know the actual specific race of a person to be a racist.
I believed one could be racist through ignorance of such information and I later admitted "we were both wrong".
To hear you speak of logic is laughable Birdie when you've misread from the start, you cannot understand basic analogies and you affix me the label "straw man" simply for using one.
If you do not see the inefficacy of AB as a forum for serious debate (compared to ones designed for such use - phpBB, vBulletin, or whatever the standard software is called) as opposed to quick Q & As that is fine but do not judge me for finding it difficult to write short posts. Mark Twain famously wrote, "I would have written a shorter letter but I didn't have the time" - writing is my aptitude and I find it far easier to pour out onto the page than summarise nutshells. Such is my burden perhaps but I'm pleased to hear you have finally met somebody like me because it suggests you're getting used to the idea of differing opinions and how to deal with them. Perhaps one day you'll master tact, and then you may be in a position to disguise failure to understand as remarks about logic more convincingly.
Above you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg!! They are only summarising what has been said.” "
That was exactly my point! Goodness how you've misunderstood!!
Person 2 is akin to myself - you stated i was making an implication; I was using that analogy to explain why I was not implying a thing - only reiterating what Naomi had said herself.
And then you go as far as to call me obtuse when you've clearly misunderstood or you wouldn't be trying to make the point I JUST MADE your own.
I utterly resent the straw man implication because my anaology not only made perfect sense but it was logically relevant. Analogies are like my signature - I use them often and wisely to simplify logic. If you believe in this case it's confused the logic or is illogical please at least explain.
Birdie you do seem to have a knack for irritating me. Let me try to make it a little clearer so perhaps finally somebody else can be "honest" with themselves (as I already have been - I previously admitted I was wrong about the definition and Naomi did not).
But you seem to think I posted the UN link unaware it did not contain religion. I'm afraid Birdie that if AB is the place you come to make lengthy discussion posts then so be it, but I discuss important issues daily and come on AB on occasion (each to their own) and I assure you in no other such forum I use would I expect somebody to miss that entirely, yet both yourself and Naomi did.
The UN link hurt my argument as much as it did Naomi's - so I admitted IN THAT POST we were both wrong, and went on to argue that there is no clear definition of race.
Still with me?
Naomi believed it was a must to know the actual specific race of a person to be a racist.
I believed one could be racist through ignorance of such information and I later admitted "we were both wrong".
To hear you speak of logic is laughable Birdie when you've misread from the start, you cannot understand basic analogies and you affix me the label "straw man" simply for using one.
If you do not see the inefficacy of AB as a forum for serious debate (compared to ones designed for such use - phpBB, vBulletin, or whatever the standard software is called) as opposed to quick Q & As that is fine but do not judge me for finding it difficult to write short posts. Mark Twain famously wrote, "I would have written a shorter letter but I didn't have the time" - writing is my aptitude and I find it far easier to pour out onto the page than summarise nutshells. Such is my burden perhaps but I'm pleased to hear you have finally met somebody like me because it suggests you're getting used to the idea of differing opinions and how to deal with them. Perhaps one day you'll master tact, and then you may be in a position to disguise failure to understand as remarks about logic more convincingly.
Oh and i find it "unsatisfactory" because i type fast and don't spellcheck. You'll notice in this thread many typing mistakes (missing parentheses etc..) and on occasion a small post like this but with an asterisk to correct spelling, or to correct a mistyped word.
"Unsatisfactory" - lol
You are skilled at poking your finger without being specific, that's for sure.
"Unsatisfactory" - lol
You are skilled at poking your finger without being specific, that's for sure.
barcelonic29 -
You are absolutely incredible. You seem to think that it is I who has misunderstood your arguments. I haven't. Amongst many others, I understand your argument in which you state that, “... you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg...” etc. I have no problem with its internal logic but the whole thing simply isn't analogous to the arguments that others have been presenting, hence it is a 'straw man'.
I find this statement puzzling, “... To hear you speak of logic is laughable Birdie when you've misread from the start, you cannot understand basic analogies and you affix me the label 'straw man' simply for using one...”
I didn't call you a 'straw man' for using an analogy. I didn't call you a 'straw man' at all. Clearly, you do not understand what a 'straw man' is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
As for me irritating you, I can't help it if your arguments are weak and you take objection to that fact being pointed out. And as for me lacking tact, please review your own posts for examples of copious amounts of insults and snide remarks.
You are absolutely incredible. You seem to think that it is I who has misunderstood your arguments. I haven't. Amongst many others, I understand your argument in which you state that, “... you'll note Person 2 is not IMPLYING Person A prefers meat to veg...” etc. I have no problem with its internal logic but the whole thing simply isn't analogous to the arguments that others have been presenting, hence it is a 'straw man'.
I find this statement puzzling, “... To hear you speak of logic is laughable Birdie when you've misread from the start, you cannot understand basic analogies and you affix me the label 'straw man' simply for using one...”
I didn't call you a 'straw man' for using an analogy. I didn't call you a 'straw man' at all. Clearly, you do not understand what a 'straw man' is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
As for me irritating you, I can't help it if your arguments are weak and you take objection to that fact being pointed out. And as for me lacking tact, please review your own posts for examples of copious amounts of insults and snide remarks.
barcelonic29
I feel we are going nowhere at the moment. I think that this is mostly because we are arguing over comments made by a third party who has clearly left this thread. I honestly believe that you have misinterpreted this person's posts and have since presented an argument based on that misunderstanding. Rather than continue with you accusing me of misunderstanding your position and me accusing you of deliberately obfuscating the debate, why don't you propose a new question on AB?
Let's 'reboot' this one and see if we can't reach a more satisfactory conclusion?
Just so you know, this will be my last posting on this particular thread.
I feel we are going nowhere at the moment. I think that this is mostly because we are arguing over comments made by a third party who has clearly left this thread. I honestly believe that you have misinterpreted this person's posts and have since presented an argument based on that misunderstanding. Rather than continue with you accusing me of misunderstanding your position and me accusing you of deliberately obfuscating the debate, why don't you propose a new question on AB?
Let's 'reboot' this one and see if we can't reach a more satisfactory conclusion?
Just so you know, this will be my last posting on this particular thread.
Birdie:
" the whole thing simply isn't analogous to the arguments that others have been presenting."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Is this a bitter joke Birdie?!? In my previous post I pointed this out clearly and you even requoted it back and still don't get my analogy and offer no understanding to me of why that is; so ill try to simplify it for you.......
Person 1 (Naomi): I believe that [......]
Person 2 (Myself): So you believe that [.....], what about you person 3?
Person 3 (.........): I believe that [......]
Now read it again Birdie and assess yourself for goodness sake. I would never have expected to have to illustrate this analogy in this way for somebody so many times. I honestly thought it was clear yet you fail to see any connection wioth the subject matter whatsoever!
As I'm hoping you'll have assumed if you've even read this, the dots in brackets above can be replaced with ANY belief - that monkeys once lived on the moon; that Santa is a TV weather girl in disguise etc...
Person [.....] can be ANY RANDOM THIRD PARTY
THEREFORE, for the last time because I feel you're either deliberately wasting my time or trying to do that which you accuse me of doing.. obfuscating;
Naomi DID state she believed knowledge of race was required to be a racist.
Therefore, as per my ANALOGY... I was summarising, just like Person 2.
So if you still cannot understand this analogy then I could break out the crayons Birdie and you still won't. If you are going to say that somebody's analogy is essentially a dud, EXPLAIN WHY - don't say ridiculous things like.. "I shall not be attempting to answer that".
As for the solitary differing opinion of Naomi & I, one good way of making this clear is to point out that in my humble opinion the recent post by TRT is a racist attitude (if such a policy were put in place it would be considered racist by most).
" the whole thing simply isn't analogous to the arguments that others have been presenting."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Is this a bitter joke Birdie?!? In my previous post I pointed this out clearly and you even requoted it back and still don't get my analogy and offer no understanding to me of why that is; so ill try to simplify it for you.......
Person 1 (Naomi): I believe that [......]
Person 2 (Myself): So you believe that [.....], what about you person 3?
Person 3 (.........): I believe that [......]
Now read it again Birdie and assess yourself for goodness sake. I would never have expected to have to illustrate this analogy in this way for somebody so many times. I honestly thought it was clear yet you fail to see any connection wioth the subject matter whatsoever!
As I'm hoping you'll have assumed if you've even read this, the dots in brackets above can be replaced with ANY belief - that monkeys once lived on the moon; that Santa is a TV weather girl in disguise etc...
Person [.....] can be ANY RANDOM THIRD PARTY
THEREFORE, for the last time because I feel you're either deliberately wasting my time or trying to do that which you accuse me of doing.. obfuscating;
Naomi DID state she believed knowledge of race was required to be a racist.
Therefore, as per my ANALOGY... I was summarising, just like Person 2.
So if you still cannot understand this analogy then I could break out the crayons Birdie and you still won't. If you are going to say that somebody's analogy is essentially a dud, EXPLAIN WHY - don't say ridiculous things like.. "I shall not be attempting to answer that".
As for the solitary differing opinion of Naomi & I, one good way of making this clear is to point out that in my humble opinion the recent post by TRT is a racist attitude (if such a policy were put in place it would be considered racist by most).
Sorry for the delay. I’ve been away.
Barcelonic29, it seems you’re trying to worm out of the hole you’ve dug yourself into. Thank you, but like Birdie, I won’t be joining you elsewhere on the internet, and neither will I be coming back to this bizarre discussion. I’ve seriously never encountered anything quite like it.
Barcelonic29, it seems you’re trying to worm out of the hole you’ve dug yourself into. Thank you, but like Birdie, I won’t be joining you elsewhere on the internet, and neither will I be coming back to this bizarre discussion. I’ve seriously never encountered anything quite like it.
Hello Naomi24. Hope you had a nice holiday. Seems that you've been missed while you've been away [especially in religious section.] Seen comments like ''Where is Naomi when you need her?' The abers seem to flounder when
you're not around, LOL! Hope you are fully refreshed. From your friendly antagonist, Cupid04.
you're not around, LOL! Hope you are fully refreshed. From your friendly antagonist, Cupid04.
Why wouldn't anyone feel aggrieved to have someone suggest they are a criminal ? What has skin colour to do with it ? Not keen on "random" searches. There should be a very good reason to pick someone out for such humiliation. The answer is, of course, to accept the world isn't a pleasant place any more and opt not to fly anywhere.
Naomi began to dig herself out of a hole and when she left I could only explain why to Birdie.
I find it rather interesting that neither of you are willing to say what this perceived 'hole' is.
I wish you the best of luck in your your future profiling Naomi. You are one of many people who discriminates and then tries to call it something else entirely.
I don't accept the definition you gave, the definition the UN gives OR the dictionaries' definitions. It you were right in justifying your racism then it wouldn't be possible to study racial sciences.
In a thread of bigots, the one preaching tolerance is unpopular. I get it. So don't worry Naomi you can go on eyeballing 'Afro-Cuban Jihadis' at airports. After all - it's not racist; it's just "being wary"
I find it rather interesting that neither of you are willing to say what this perceived 'hole' is.
I wish you the best of luck in your your future profiling Naomi. You are one of many people who discriminates and then tries to call it something else entirely.
I don't accept the definition you gave, the definition the UN gives OR the dictionaries' definitions. It you were right in justifying your racism then it wouldn't be possible to study racial sciences.
In a thread of bigots, the one preaching tolerance is unpopular. I get it. So don't worry Naomi you can go on eyeballing 'Afro-Cuban Jihadis' at airports. After all - it's not racist; it's just "being wary"
Barcelonic29, // I don't accept the definition you gave, the definition the UN gives OR the dictionaries' definitions.//
I don’t doubt that because you’re right and everyone else – including the UN – is wrong. How funny! :o)))
And Barcelonic, old chap, shooting the messenger is a sure sign of a lost argument – and your rudeness has become par for the course, so no surprise there. ;o)
I don’t doubt that because you’re right and everyone else – including the UN – is wrong. How funny! :o)))
And Barcelonic, old chap, shooting the messenger is a sure sign of a lost argument – and your rudeness has become par for the course, so no surprise there. ;o)
Yes Naomi I'm being rude. I feel that is my right when people such as Birdie and yourself have attempted to (and continue to) imply I'm saying one thing when I'm not.
My views and opinions are as valid as anybody else's and the malevolent Birdie made it his/her mission to sabotage my case by twisting everything I was trying to say.
By the end I was paraphrasing so much I had essentially dumbed it down for a child, yet he/she still claimed not to understand.
Remember Naomi I am not the one who said that it's not racist to be suspicious of Muslims. You were ALWAYS the one with the provocative statement, which I felt inclined to address.
And as for the thing you just said about the UN & "everyone else" just underpins everything I've been saying about you not being able to understand a word I say.
Have you heard of the Socratic truth Naomi? Do you believe that law is the same as ethics? Can you not see that a word in a book is simply that until it is made 'official'? Have you ever questioned a definition, for example, 'terrorist'? Have you heard the infamous quote "History is a set of lies agreed upon"?
Did you know that many millions of Americans are terrorists? Centuries ago during the American War of Independence from Britain, the British monarchy labelled the word 'terrorist' to every man, woman or child who was assisting in or aiding the war in America?
Much like today, the British people believed this was what they were - and yet now it is forgotten. Have you never, ever questioned the validity of a word or its history of politically motivated assosciations/disassosciations, which detract from the original, etymological & literal meaning of the word itself?
I have about 60 tabs open - 12 or so are discussion threads - 11 of those are in philosophy forums where most people have more to say than 'how can u be a racist if you don't know their race, d'u!, it's right there in the word haha stupid', which is essentially your approach to this topic and has been since the start.
And believe me Naomi when I say that I've never experienced a conversation like this before and tbh you're not doing AB any favors in terms of representation. AB is not suitable for lengthy-post discussions - I tried to point this out to Birdie and he took it on like ammo in a firefight instead of the perfectly valid point that it was.
If this conversation is so alien in nature to me, then given how frequently i engage in important discussions and the varying types of people i encounter, I can only conclude Naomi that it's because in other discissions any specific point i raise is addressed and not trampled on for the sake of 'winning' an imaginary brawl (when the only real brawl going on is one of logic - eg. points being raised and then respectfully addressed).
So yes Naomi I am now quite rude and I concede it. But I am at a point where I am sick of being the only one to make such concessions. In my very first post about the UN definition I abandoned the point I was making and said I was wrong about it (although neither of us are right or wrong, I figured a little humility might ease out some of the tension and attract less hostility from your posts).
You disappeared and a 'debater-type' jumped on that post after misunderstanding it in the biggest possible way.
When we were first discussing this I did not want to accuse strangers of being racist. it is called being civil. But you made your position quite clear and ever since tried to draw attention to a difference in how a word should be defined! So i find it deeply offensive to see you return to this mess you started with the implication that it is I who is trying to "dig myself" out of the hole, and not yourself.
And as I'm sure by now you'll most likely disagree with pretty much ANYTHING I have to say, I would really love to hear you say one more time how racial discrimination can be considered wariness - ?
My views and opinions are as valid as anybody else's and the malevolent Birdie made it his/her mission to sabotage my case by twisting everything I was trying to say.
By the end I was paraphrasing so much I had essentially dumbed it down for a child, yet he/she still claimed not to understand.
Remember Naomi I am not the one who said that it's not racist to be suspicious of Muslims. You were ALWAYS the one with the provocative statement, which I felt inclined to address.
And as for the thing you just said about the UN & "everyone else" just underpins everything I've been saying about you not being able to understand a word I say.
Have you heard of the Socratic truth Naomi? Do you believe that law is the same as ethics? Can you not see that a word in a book is simply that until it is made 'official'? Have you ever questioned a definition, for example, 'terrorist'? Have you heard the infamous quote "History is a set of lies agreed upon"?
Did you know that many millions of Americans are terrorists? Centuries ago during the American War of Independence from Britain, the British monarchy labelled the word 'terrorist' to every man, woman or child who was assisting in or aiding the war in America?
Much like today, the British people believed this was what they were - and yet now it is forgotten. Have you never, ever questioned the validity of a word or its history of politically motivated assosciations/disassosciations, which detract from the original, etymological & literal meaning of the word itself?
I have about 60 tabs open - 12 or so are discussion threads - 11 of those are in philosophy forums where most people have more to say than 'how can u be a racist if you don't know their race, d'u!, it's right there in the word haha stupid', which is essentially your approach to this topic and has been since the start.
And believe me Naomi when I say that I've never experienced a conversation like this before and tbh you're not doing AB any favors in terms of representation. AB is not suitable for lengthy-post discussions - I tried to point this out to Birdie and he took it on like ammo in a firefight instead of the perfectly valid point that it was.
If this conversation is so alien in nature to me, then given how frequently i engage in important discussions and the varying types of people i encounter, I can only conclude Naomi that it's because in other discissions any specific point i raise is addressed and not trampled on for the sake of 'winning' an imaginary brawl (when the only real brawl going on is one of logic - eg. points being raised and then respectfully addressed).
So yes Naomi I am now quite rude and I concede it. But I am at a point where I am sick of being the only one to make such concessions. In my very first post about the UN definition I abandoned the point I was making and said I was wrong about it (although neither of us are right or wrong, I figured a little humility might ease out some of the tension and attract less hostility from your posts).
You disappeared and a 'debater-type' jumped on that post after misunderstanding it in the biggest possible way.
When we were first discussing this I did not want to accuse strangers of being racist. it is called being civil. But you made your position quite clear and ever since tried to draw attention to a difference in how a word should be defined! So i find it deeply offensive to see you return to this mess you started with the implication that it is I who is trying to "dig myself" out of the hole, and not yourself.
And as I'm sure by now you'll most likely disagree with pretty much ANYTHING I have to say, I would really love to hear you say one more time how racial discrimination can be considered wariness - ?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.