Why It’s Time Black People Simply Disengage With White People In Discussing Race

[rasheedfan2005]

Dafuq are you talking about?

Im just saying sometimes forum members get drunk in orionbailey's hot tub and sometimes 2 drunk consenting men slip a finger inside one another just between bros totally no homo. Not that there is anything wrong with it if it was homo.

 

[dviss1]

I agree with that.

Look what happened after Portugal did it.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

Drug warriors often contend that drug use would skyrocket if we were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in the United States. Fortunately, we have a real-world example of the actual effects of ending the violent, expensive War on Drugs and replacing it with a system of treatment for problem users and addicts.

 

[dviss1]

Im just saying sometimes forum members get drunk in orionbailey's hot tub and sometimes 2 drunk consenting men slip a finger inside one another just between bros totally no homo. Not that there is anything wrong with it if it was homo.

Ok yeah I'm done with the thread now. My ass says exit only.

Edit: That did make me LOL though!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Im just saying sometimes forum members get drunk in orionbailey's hot tub and sometimes 2 drunk consenting men slip a finger inside one another just between bros totally no homo. Not that there is anything wrong with it if it was homo.

 

[blue32]

Im just saying sometimes forum members get drunk in orionbailey's hot tub and sometimes 2 drunk consenting men slip a finger inside one another just between bros totally no homo. Not that there is anything wrong with it if it was homo.

I'm offended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm offended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure there will be room for you in the hot tub.

 

[crandc]

I really hope you're not talking about Hillary.

Actually I was talking about Beyoncé, but yes, I'd include Hillary. While O'Reilly lived in a legislated whites only community, Hillary Clinton fought against housing discrimination. While O'Reilly bloviated about school dropouts, Clinton worked to expand education to people with disabilities. While O'Reilly waved the flag after 9/11 to silence dissent, Clinton as a U.S. Senator fought for funding to care for first responders. Need I go on?

 

[blue32]

I'm sure there will be room for you in the hot tub.

 

[crandc]

Not sure what "things that need to be said" MarAzul is claiming Trump says. Like Obama is foreign born and he has proof he won't share with us? Like a judge born in Indiana cannot be objective because he is of Mexican heritage? That Black people are lazy? That Mexico is deliberately sending rapist and murderers to the U.S.? That he wants only Jews to be his accountants?

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c49a58-88b7-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

But Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one.

Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: “A Gentleman’s Agreement,” about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiance.

The move infuriated council members, who said it was a distraction from their concerns that Trump’s club would spoil a quiet street. But, in time, Trump got most of the restrictions lifted.

 

[Denny Crane]

Many of Trump’s rivals in the presidential race have been to Mar-a-Lago for functions, including Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Ben Carson. So have many Republican commentators, including Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton came, too, attending Trump’s wedding to Melania Knauss 10 years ago.

Since 2013, the Palm Beach County Republican Committee has held its annual Lincoln Day fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. Michael Barnett, committee chairman, remembers seeing Cruz last year deep in conversation with Trump and wonders if one of the reasons they are so friendly on the campaign trail is because of a bond forged at Mar-a-Lago.

 

[Natebishop3]

First of all, I think your explanation of what makes one a Christian is woefully incomplete. However, even if you were right, if the Westboro people don't actually follow Christ--as I would assert, based on their hate-based rhetoric--then by your own words, they are not Christian.

It appears that you are claiming to be more qualified to determine whether or not someone is actually an adherent to or member of a faith than other members of that particular faith are. That seems pretty arrogant to me.

I think it is equally as arrogant, or perhaps more so, to make assumptions about someone's faith without knowing anything about them.

What qualifies someone to define what a "Christian" is?

I'm baptized.... is that good enough?

I went to Preschool and Kindergarten at a Christian school, still not enough?

I went to a Lutheran church for years, and I went through the confirmation process, do I get to have an opinion now, or do you not consider Lutheran to be part of Christianity?

Your definition of Christianity is your opinion. Just because you think the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't truly follow the teachings of Christ doesn't mean that they don't fall under the Christian faith. The Catholic Church has committed countless atrocities throughout history in the name of Christ, would you not consider them Christian? I get that you don't want to claim the bad apples because you don't think they follow the true teachings of Christ, but that's not your decision to make.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think it is equally as arrogant, or perhaps more so, to make assumptions about someone's faith without knowing anything about them.

What qualifies someone to define what a "Christian" is?

I'm baptized.... is that good enough?

I went to Preschool and Kindergarten at a Christian school, still not enough?

I went to a Lutheran church for years, and I went through the confirmation process, do I get to have an opinion now, or do you not consider Lutheran to be part of Christianity?

Your definition of Christianity is your opinion. Just because you think the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't truly follow the teachings of Christ doesn't mean that they don't fall under the Christian faith. The Catholic Church has committed countless atrocities throughout history in the name of Christ, would you not consider them Christian? I get that you don't want to claim the bad apples because you don't think they follow the true teachings of Christ, but that's not your decision to make.

Whose decision is it to make? Who is the ultimate authority on who is or isn't a Christian (or a Muslim)?

 

[riverman]

Whose decision is it to make? Who is the ultimate authority on who is or isn't a Christian (or a Muslim)?

It's my decision but I've been slacking on the job

 

[blue32]

Whose decision is it to make? Who is the ultimate authority on who is or isn't a Christian (or a Muslim)?

Where's Jesus H Christ when you need him.........................

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's my decision but I've been slacking on the job

C'mon riverman--step it up! We expect better from you, man!

 

[Natebishop3]

Whose decision is it to make? Who is the ultimate authority on who is or isn't a Christian (or a Muslim)?

I guess I don't understand the point of arguing. It's not about whether they're doing it right, or who is the true believer.... If you follow Christ you are, by definition, a Christian. How you do it is up to you and your particular denomination. It's the same with Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism. There's a reason why each religion has so many interpretations. There isn't a "right one." Well, I guess each person thinks they are following "the right one," but are you arguing that your faith is the one true faith? Is that why we're having this problem?

Also, I could make a pretty solid argument that the hate groups like Westboro are much more historically accurate in their portrayal of Christianity.

Couple examples for ya:

The Crusades

The Spanish Inquisition

The Salem Witch Trial

A lot of uncool shit has been done in the name of God and the name of Christ. While I agree with you that those people clearly aren't following the true teachings of Jesus (love your brother, judge not, etc), it's still part of the Christian history. And while I'm sure you'd love to wipe those events from the history books because you don't think they reflect the true teachings of Christ, they happened and I would hope that they, along with douchebags like Westboro, server as a reminder of the darker side of organized religion. People will interpret a message differently. Some Christians do good things, while others do bad things. It's the same with Islam. Millions of really good Muslims, but also quite a few bad ones.

 

[Natebishop3]

Actually I was talking about Beyoncé, but yes, I'd include Hillary. While O'Reilly lived in a legislated whites only community, Hillary Clinton fought against housing discrimination. While O'Reilly bloviated about school dropouts, Clinton worked to expand education to people with disabilities. While O'Reilly waved the flag after 9/11 to silence dissent, Clinton as a U.S. Senator fought for funding to care for first responders. Need I go on?

All O'Reilly is, or ever has been, is a bag of hot air.

Hillary has been a part of actual damage to this country. Long lasting, life impacting, criminally negligent damage.

If you're going to defend Clinton, someone who was against equal rights for gay people.... well...... I don't know what to tell you.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I guess I don't understand the point of arguing. It's not about whether they're doing it right, or who is the true believer.... If you follow Christ you are, by definition, a Christian. How you do it is up to you and your particular denomination. It's the same with Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism. There's a reason why each religion has so many interpretations. There isn't a "right one." Well, I guess each person thinks they are following "the right one," but are you arguing that your faith is the one true faith? Is that why we're having this problem?

Also, I could make a pretty solid argument that the hate groups like Westboro are much more historically accurate in their portrayal of Christianity.

Couple examples for ya:

The Crusades

The Spanish Inquisition

The Salem Witch Trial

A lot of uncool shit has been done in the name of God and the name of Christ. While I agree with you that those people clearly aren't following the true teachings of Jesus (love your brother, judge not, etc), it's still part of the Christian history. And while I'm sure you'd love to wipe those events from the history books because you don't think they reflect the true teachings of Christ, they happened and I would hope that they, along with douchebags like Westboro, server as a reminder of the darker side of organized religion. People will interpret a message differently. Some Christians do good things, while others do bad things. It's the same with Islam. Millions of really good Muslims, but also quite a few bad ones.

You make a lot of assumptions. It's unfortunate. It makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

Here are my assumptions; let's see if we can agree on these:

• The initial basis for this discussion was whether or not the 9/11 suicide bombers were Muslims.
• Bill O'Reilly defined "Muslim" in one way, and you agree with his definition.
• Many of those who practice Islam apparently define it differently than you and O'Reilly do.
• O'Reilly said "Muslims killed us on 9/11;" many people disagreed, and you said his statement was not wrong.

My conclusion, based on those assumptions, is you've determined that your and Bill's definition is more valid than theirs. My only point this whole time has been that I can understand how someone would take the other side of that discussion.

What's the problem with that?

 

[Denny Crane]

Some Muslims did attack us on 9/11, prior, and since.

The vast majority had nothing to do with it.

 

[Natebishop3]

You make a lot of assumptions. It's unfortunate. It makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

Here are my assumptions; let's see if we can agree on these:

• The initial basis for this discussion was whether or not the 9/11 suicide bombers were Muslims.
• Bill O'Reilly defined "Muslim" in one way, and you agree with his definition.
• Many of those who practice Islam apparently define it differently than you and O'Reilly do.
• O'Reilly said "Muslims killed us on 9/11;" many people disagreed, and you said his statement was not wrong.

My conclusion, based on those assumptions, is you've determined that your and Bill's definition is more valid than theirs. My only point this whole time has been that I can understand how someone would take the other side of that discussion.

What's the problem with that?

Because it seems to me that you're making it a debate over what's the correct way to be a Muslim, or the correct way to be a Christian. I.E. if you don't follow Christ or Mohammed in this way, you're not really a member of that faith. Or at least you're defending people who would have that opinion.

Would the attackers on 9/11 consider themselves Muslim? I'm sure they would probably say the exact same thing that you're saying. That Muslims who do not believe as they do are not Muslims at all. So rather than argue over which Muslim is a true Muslim, why aren't they all Muslims?

This stance by the people who disagree seems..... I'm not sure of the best way to put this...... narrow minded? I'm not trying to be insulting. I just don't understand how this is something that can be debated. If they're not Muslims, what are they? That's an honest question. What would you call them? They follow the teachings of Mohammed (as interpreted by them) and they believe in Allah. I'm just not sure what more they need to be classified as a Muslim. It seems more like the masses want to reject those people because it makes them look bad, but in my opinion the dark underbelly of organized religion is there, and people should stop pretending like it doesn't exist. There IS a negative interpretation of the Bible, or the Koran. That's the problem with taking a book written thousands of years ago literally.

I can understand why people would want to erase the embarrassing moments from their past, but if Christians chose to disregard the darker periods in their history, it would marginalize the growth and evolution of their religion. So if Muslims refuse to claim the radical side of Islam, they're never going to grow past it.

 

[Natebishop3]

Some Muslims did attack us on 9/11, prior, and since.

The vast majority had nothing to do with it.

Plat and I are debating whether the attackers should be called Muslims at all. Whether the majority had anything to do with it is not even a part of this discussion. He is saying that he understands why some people would argue that 9/11 wasn't done by Muslims. I disagree.

 

[riverman]

Because it seems to me that you're making it a debate over what's the correct way to be a Muslim, or the correct way to be a Christian. I.E. if you don't follow Christ or Mohammed in this way, you're not really a member of that faith. Or at least you're defending people who would have that opinion.

Would the attackers on 9/11 consider themselves Muslim? I'm sure they would probably say the exact same thing that you're saying. That Muslims who do not believe as they do are not Muslims at all. So rather than argue over which Muslim is a true Muslim, why aren't they all Muslims?

This stance by the people who disagree seems..... I'm not sure of the best way to put this...... narrow minded? I'm not trying to be insulting. I just don't understand how this is something that can be debated. If they're not Muslims, what are they? That's an honest question. What would you call them? They follow the teachings of Mohammed (as interpreted by them) and they believe in Allah. I'm just not sure what more they need to be classified as a Muslim. It seems more like the masses want to reject those people because it makes them look bad, but in my opinion the dark underbelly of organized religion is there, and people should stop pretending like it doesn't exist. There IS a negative interpretation of the Bible, or the Koran. That's the problem with taking a book written thousands of years ago literally.

I can understand why people would want to erase the embarrassing moments from their past, but if Christians chose to disregard the darker periods in their history, it would marginalize the growth and evolution of their religion. So if Muslims try to claim the radical side of Islam, they're never going to grow past it.

Actually a lot of members of faiths have doubts about their faith from time to time...they are still members of their religions

 

[Natebishop3]

Actually a lot of members of faiths have doubts about their faith from time to time...they are still members of their religions

I apologize Riverman, but I'm not really seeing how this is relevant to the topic.

 

[Natebishop3]

Whose decision is it to make? Who is the ultimate authority on who is or isn't a Christian (or a Muslim)?

After thinking about it more, I have an answer for this:

The individual gets to decide if they are or are not Christian or Muslim.

Nobody can tell someone they're not Christian. They can't tell them they're not Muslim. If someone self-identifies as a Muslim, then they are a Muslim, and how they interpret that religion is up to them.

That's my answer.

 

[riverman]

I apologize Riverman, but I'm not really seeing how this is relevant to the topic.

It's all good, but for the record, theological discussions have little to do with the topic of this thread at all....you said faith determines membership, I said you can be a member and lose faith from time to time....hope that clarifies my post for you

 

[Natebishop3]

It's all good, but for the record, theological discussions have little to do with the topic of this thread at all....you said faith determines membership, I said you can be a member and lose faith from time to time....hope that clarifies my post for you

But that's entirely the point. People get to decide for themselves. It's not up to others to decide whether you are or are not a member of that faith. People are selectively choosing not to recognize others as Christians or Muslims because they're embarrassed by how those groups behave. How they represent their religion. And while I can sympathize with their reasons, I do not agree that they can pick and choose what defines a member.

 

[Denny Crane]

Plat and I are debating whether the attackers should be called Muslims at all. Whether the majority had anything to do with it is not even a part of this discussion. He is saying that he understands why some people would argue that 9/11 wasn't done by Muslims. I disagree.

As I said, they are Muslims. Of the radical kind. Driven by a distorted and cherry picked subset of the Quran.

You have to call it what it is if you want to address the problem at the source.

 

[Natebishop3]

As I said, they are Muslims. Of the radical kind. Driven by a distorted and cherry picked subset of the Quran.

You have to call it what it is if you want to address the problem at the source.

It just seems like the left is so concerned with not insulting Muslims that they won't even admit that the attackers were Muslim at all, albeit of the radical kind.

 

[Denny Crane]

It just seems like the left is so concerned with not insulting Muslims that they won't even admit that the attackers were Muslim at all, albeit of the radical kind.

Workplace violence.

LOL