Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

Because you'd never say that about whites, but you did about blacks.

I just did. People respond to how you treat them. If someone has been treated poorly by white people in particular, I would expect them to be bitter and suspicious towards white people in general.

The only reason you're calling me racist is because I said that someone who has been poorly treated by black people isn't prejudiced for being bitter and suspicious to black people in general.

The ultimate question - we can choose to feed these perceptions or we can choose to work against them.

[Ben Kenobi]

One last time... FACT - MOST MASS SHOOTINGS ARE DONE BY WHITE PEOPLE. Your use of just the Top 10 does nothing to change that. 64% of all mass shooting were done by White People.

And of the top 10, most were done by people who aren't white.

[Ming]

What difference does that make? Oh, that's right, it's the only way you can support your POV.
White people (Males) are responsible for the most mass shootings.
And let's not even get started on total body count by race...

So you can lamely try to continue to use your top 10 argument... but it proves nothing.
You are far more likely to be shot by a white male in a mass shooting than any other race.

[rah]

I just did. People respond to how you treat them. If someone has been treated poorly by white people in particular, I would expect them to be bitter and suspicious towards white people in general.

The only reason you're calling me racist is because I said that someone who has been poorly treated by black people isn't prejudiced for being bitter and suspicious to black people in general.

Changing your answer from 'NOPE' I see. Typical. You realized how racist it sounded so you changed your answer.
The quote we use in our signatures is on display to remind you how racist you are. You are a joke.

[Ben Kenobi]

Changing your answer from 'NOPE' I see. Typical. You realized how racist it sounded so you changed your answer.

I clarified to hammer the point home harder.

The quote we use in our signatures is on display to remind you how racist you are. You are a joke.

I await the day that you quote what I just posted.

[Ben Kenobi]

What difference does that make? Oh, that's right, it's the only way you can support your POV.

Given that mine includes those mass killings with more than 10 people, I have to wonder how they've defined 'mass killings'.

[rah]

You don't even see it. That's how bad you are.
If someone treats you bad, you think it's OK to attribute it to their color. Racist by definition.

Enjoy your world of denial.

[Ben Kenobi]

If someone treats you bad, you think it's OK to attribute it to their color. Racist by definition.

Once again - there's a different between is and ought. I have never said that one ought to hate everyone because of the actions of a particular. What I have said is that I don't believe it to be prejudice if someone has been hurt by other people to this extent. I think that it is the rational response to someone who has been hurt to avoid similar situations in the future.

Just because you believe that reason is the sole determinant of what constitutes morality does not believe that I believe it to be the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyways, I await the day you quote post #826

[Ming]

Given that mine includes those mass killings with more than 10 people, I have to wonder how they've defined 'mass killings'.

It was the same source... so the definition was the same. You either didn't read the whole study or recap or you simply ignored it since it proved you wrong.
But typical BK... slice the data so it supports your POV while the total data shows you are wrong.
Nice Try... but you are wrong as usual. Most mass shootings are done by White Males. More people in mass shootings have been shot by White Males.
And that's a fact... Simple as that.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was the same source... so the definition was the same. You either didn't read the whole study or recap or you simply ignored it since it proved you wrong.

I ask - how have they defined 'mass killing'?

But typical BK... slice the data so it supports your POV while the total data shows you are wrong.

Actually, I expected white people to be the majority, because white people are the majority. I was actually shocked when I realized this was no longer the case. I hadn't expected to find that but when I found that I'm certainly going to report that fact.

Most mass shootings are done by White Males. More people in mass shootings have been shot by White Males.

Most mass shootings over 10 people at a time are actually done not by white men.

And that's a fact... Simple as that.

It depends on your definition of 'mass killing'.

[rah]

Once again - there's a different between is and ought. I have never said that one ought to hate everyone because of the actions of a particular. What I have said is that I don't believe it to be prejudice if someone has been hurt by other people to this extent. I think that it is the rational response to someone who has been hurt to avoid similar situations in the future.

Just because you believe that reason is the sole determinant of what constitutes morality does not believe that I believe it to be the same.

Keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Racist pig.

You're saying it's not prejudice to be act like a racist.
You can believe whatever you want. It doesn't make it any less racist.

I could do another what would you do thread and discover yet again that NO ONE agreed with you.
I know it doesn't prove anything, but it really should make you look just a bit harder.
But of course, you don't seem to ever think, based on what you post at Poly.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're saying it's not prejudice to be act like a racist.

All I'm saying is the aphorism, "once bitten, twice shy". People avoid unpleasant circumstances that have hurt them. It is rational behavior.

You can believe whatever you want. It doesn't make it any less racist.

How do you attack my premiss that our actions, positive or negative are going to affect the future outlook of those who come into contact with us? Surely if someone were racist, wouldn't he be arguing that it was good to treat people like crap because they were of a different race? I am arguing the precise opposite - that we have a duty to do our best to alleviate the bull**** that life throws at other people.

You want to call me a racist for that, go right ahead, rah.

I could do another what would you do thread and discover yet again that NO ONE agreed with you.

And I would just as soon answer back that morality is not subject to a majority vote.

I know it doesn't prove anything, but it really should make you look just a bit harder.

Your argument presupposes that Apolyton as a whole is a morally praiseworthy place.

But of course, you don't seem to ever think, based on what you post at Poly.

Rather I don't seem to agree with you. You're right, rah - we often disagree on matters of morality. But - what you don't say is how often we agree. That comforts me at night knowing that it bothers you so much that you feel the need to distance yourself from my statements.

I'm confident in what I believe. Are you?

[rah]

All I'm saying is the aphorism, "once bitten, twice shy". People avoid unpleasant circumstances that have hurt them. It is rational behavior.

But you're saying it's OK if you define it because by RACE. Go check the definition of RACISM.

You want to call me a racist for that, go right ahead, rah.

Yes I do and I will continue. See above. Go look it up.

And I would just as soon answer back that morality is not subject to a majority vote.

Throughout history, it has been determined by that for the period.
But that's not the issue here. We're not talking morality we're talking about the DEFINITION of RACISM
Your example fits it perfectly. If you want to say that your morality doesn't have a problem with it. Fine.
t doesn't make you any less of a racist.

Your argument presupposes that Apolyton as a whole is a morally praiseworthy place.

Again, it would be an understanding of the definition of RACISM and not morality.
Quit trying to change the subject. On the whole from an intelligence point of view, I would say this place is above average (despite a couple of village idiots) in that department. I would think most strategy sites would have a similar characteristic.

Rather I don't seem to agree with you. You're right, rah - we often disagree on matters of morality. But - what you don't say is how often we agree. That comforts me at night knowing that it bothers you so much that you feel the need to distance yourself from my statements.

Again, I'm talking about the definition of racism and how your comments fit the definition. I already know we don't agree on matters of morality. You would increase the odds of a future child of yours committing suicide because of your morality. We've already agreed that it makes me consider you a monster and you disagree. There is nothing to discuss there so I'm done wasting my time on that.

In that I'm quite confident.

[Ben Kenobi]

But you're saying it's OK if you define it because by RACE. Go check the definition of RACISM.

Where did I ever say it was ok? I don't believe people ought to act that way - but people being who they are can and do feel this way. How do we best deal with people who do see things this way?

Throughout history, it has been determined by that for the period.

Chilling.

But that's not the issue here. We're not talking morality we're talking about the DEFINITION of RACISM

We *are* talking about morality. You believe that racism is immoral. So do I. We are not in disagreement there. What we are in disagreement over is over what is the definition of prejudice? I am arguing that there is a significant difference between someone being treated like crap his whole life by people and between someone who has not.

Your example fits it perfectly. If you want to say that your morality doesn't have a problem with it. Fine.
t doesn't make you any less of a racist.

I'm a racist for saying that we should go out of our way to treat people who have been hurt in the past well?

Quit trying to change the subject. On the whole from an intelligence point of view, I would say this place is above average (despite a couple of village idiots) in that department. I would think most strategy sites would have a similar characteristic.

You were the one who brought up the vote. I said nothing about it. I also don't believe that intelligence has anything to do with morality. Clearly you believe that the consensus on Poly makes for a significant argument in favor of morality. That, is a rather curious statement. Why do you believe that, rah?

You would increase the odds of a future child of yours committing suicide because of your morality. We've already agreed that it makes me consider you a monster and you disagree. There is nothing to discuss there so I'm done wasting my time on that.

Oddly I would argue that so are you. We have a difference of opinion as to what makes people truly happy.

In that I'm quite confident.

Then why did you call up that vote?