Are black on white attacks justified?

[Ktoyou]

bl it, buddy

You may have that thought in you head, it meaning something not as sexual; however, most people see it as a very immature response. We have rules about young persons being members as young as age 13 and about language not to offend them, as that 'potty language' is popular with eight to twelve year-old boys, which we actively discourage because we want an adult forum.

It does not matter so much if you mean one or the other, it still is very immature body language; you should know better, or be supervised.

 

[Foxfire]

You may have that thought in you head, it meaning something not as sexual; however, most people see it as a very immature response. We have rules about young persons being members as young as age 13 and about language not to offend them, as that 'potty language' is popular with eight to twelve year-old boys, which we actively discourage because we want an adult forum.

It does not matter so much if you mean one or the other, it still is very immature body language; you should know better, or be supervised.

:thumb:

 

[ok doser]

You may have that thought in you head, it meaning something not as sexual...

in the context of the last few days, i was confident that town would understand that i was saying "blow it out your backside" or something similar

i was also confident that he would get the vapours from the crudity of it and run whining to mommy about it :chuckle:

; however, most people see it as a very immature response.

yeah baby! :banana:

We have rules about young persons being members as young as age 13 and about language not to offend them, as that 'potty language' is popular with eight to twelve year-old boys, which we actively discourage because we want an adult forum

wait a tic - you're worried that language that you admit is popular among 8-12 years olds is too advanced for 13 year olds to put in context? :freak:

It does not matter so much if you mean one or the other, it still is very immature body language; you should know better, or be supervised.

perhaps you could persuade town to take a hint, and then people wouldn't have to be more blunt :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

we want an adult forum.

perhaps a good place to start would be to discourage the immature behavior of the likes of town and artie, especially their trolling of catholic crusader and crucible

 

[ok doser]

You may have that thought in you head, it meaning something not as sexual...

the first four definitions from the oxford dictionary (none of them sexual):

blow1 verb 1[no object] (of wind) move creating an air current. ‘a cold breeze was blowing in off the sea’ 1.1[with object and adverbial of direction](of wind) cause (something) to move; propel. ‘a gust of wind blew a cloud of smoke into his face’ ‘the spire was blown down during a gale’ 1.2[no object, with adverbial of direction]Be carried, driven, or moved by the wind or an air current. ‘it was so windy that the tent nearly blew away’ ‘cotton curtains blowing in the breeze’ 1.3North American informal Leave. [no object] ‘I'd better blow’

if i had said "shove it, you pretentious bore", would that have been acceptable?

how about "stuff it, you tiresome jerk"?

perhaps "sod off"? :idunno:





can you recommend an acceptable usage for a fellow who doesn't understand the meaning behind "now run along and play with some matches, you tiresome bore :wave2: "

 

[Arthur Brain]

perhaps a good place to start would be to discourage the immature behavior of the likes of town and artie, especially their trolling of catholic crusader and crucible

Geez, will you get over your obsession with TH already? If he's such a 'tiresome bore' as you put it then put him on ignore, cept you won't will ya?

Calling out the likes of Cruc on his bonkers anti women diatribes is not 'trolling' doofus. Nice try at deflecting though.

 

[Crucible]

Blacks burn down businesses, snipes out officers, and threatens a race war based on almost entirely prejudice.

Liberals be like

 

[Ktoyou]

perhaps a good place to start would be to discourage the immature behavior of the likes of town and artie, especially their trolling of catholic crusader and crucible

OK

 

[Town Heretic]

perhaps a good place to start would be to discourage the immature behavior of the likes of town and artie, especially their trolling of catholic crusader and crucible

You are to honest assessment what you are to irony, at best an unintentional ally. At worst and on the whole a hole from which neither wit nor light will ever escape.

 

[annabenedetti]

perhaps a good place to start would be to discourage the immature behavior of the likes of town and artie, especially their trolling of catholic crusader and crucible

Classic projection from the longest-running troll at TOL.

I was going to say the biggest troll, but I don't know that for sure these days because CC and Crucible are gaining on you. Who knows, they may even pass you up.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Fine, then do you not consider those who you believe to be part of 'the body' your brothers and sisters in Christ? Hence brethren.

Those who believe? Yes, i don't think everyone who posts here that say they are christian, are. So no, everyone who says they are a believer are not my brethren.

Yes you did, with the following direct quote:

You just told one. You also told one when you painted all right wing believers that post at TOL with your incorrect rant.

I didnt say all, you did, i said those at TOL.

You want to retract that now?

nope.

You've just proved you can't seem to keep track of what you write yourself.

Nope

 

[Arthur Brain]

yes, do tell me how though you believe that anyone who claims they are christian, mean they are part of the body, because they say so?

Right, so you consider those who you believe to be part of 'the body' your brothers and sisters in Christ. That was the point of the 'brethren' bit.

I didnt say all, you did, i said those at TOL.

Okay, you either have severe reading comprehension difficulties, have a very short attention deficit or you are flat out lying now. I've pulled up direct quotes from you where you blatantly contradict yourself. You need to see them again?

Ok, here ya go:

"I showed what was stated by you above, i never claimed you painted all right wingers - and this is the third 'change' to what you stated youve made when called on it."

"You just told one. You also told one when you painted all right wing believers that post at TOL with your incorrect rant."

Those are direct quotes from you Angel. Now where did I bring 'all' into it? Quote me on it. I'll wait while you don't manage to do that.

nope.

Well, you said you wanted to be told if your witness was lacking or something akin so here's some advice. Get your facts straight before you accuse someone of saying something they haven't. If you've made a mistake as you have here then own it, we all do it so there's no shame in it. If you don't retract your accusation then you bear false witness against me and that's your call, but you'll only serve to reinforce my view of many far right wingers on here if you do.

Nope

Well, yes as with the direct contradictions I've quoted from you above. Up to you if you want to be so arrogant as to not take ownership of your very own words though.

:e4e:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Right, so you consider those who you believe to be part of 'the body' your brothers and sisters in Christ. That was the point of the 'brethren' bit.



Okay, you either have severe reading comprehension difficulties, have a very short attention deficit or you are flat out lying now. I've pulled up direct quotes from you where you blatantly contradict yourself. You need to see them again?

Ok, here ya go:

"I showed what was stated by you above, i never claimed you painted all right wingers - and this is the third 'change' to what you stated youve made when called on it."

"You just told one. You also told one when you painted all right wing believers that post at TOL with your incorrect rant."

Those are direct quotes from you Angel. Now where did I bring 'all' into it? Quote me on it. I'll wait while you don't manage to do that.

yes, you claimed i said you said all right wingers, when i said you said all of us at tol there is a huge difference between the 2. You also called all those who claim to be right wing christians at tol, as being my brethren also.

If that isnt a wide brush, i dont know what is.

 

[Arthur Brain]

yes, you claimed i said you said all right wingers, when i said you said all of us at tol there is a huge difference between the 2. You also called all those who claim to be right wing christians at tol, as being my brethren also.

If that isnt a wide brush, i dont know what is.

I didn't say all right wingers on TOL at any point so that's all on you Angel. You prepared to concede you made a mistake or are you going to now deliberately lie about me after being shown your error? Quote me where I made a 'claim' where I said all those who identify as far right Christians are your brethren also.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I didn't say all right wingers on TOL at any point so that's all on you Angel. You prepared to concede you made a mistake or are you going to now deliberately lie about me after being shown your error? Quote me where I made a 'claim' where I said all those who identify as far right Christians are your brethren also.

Ive already posted what i said and what you said. Have a nice night

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ive already posted what i said and what you said. Have a nice night

Thanks for underlining what I said to begin with where it comes to many far right wingers. In future please don't lie or make up erroneous accusations about me that you can't back up.

Have a nice night yourself.

:e4e:

 

[annabenedetti]

if true, one would expect the consequences of that torn fabric to be most pronounced as one approaches slavery, not as one recedes from it

what was the state of the black american family in the immediate post-slavery era?

i suspect it was much more stable and much less "morally and spiritually bankrupt" than what we see today

no, the moral and spiritual bankruptcy is more closely tied to the advent of the government replacing the father in the black family

From the polarizing Moynihan Report:

In this new period the expectations of the Negro Americans will go beyond civil rights. Being Americans, they will now expect that in the near future equal opportunities for them as a group will produce roughly equal results, as compared with other groups. This is not going to happen. Nor will it happen for generations to come unless a new and special effort is made.

There are two reasons. First, the racist virus in the American blood stream still afflicts us: Negroes will encounter serious personal prejudice for at least another generation. Second, three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment have taken their toll on the Negro people. The harsh fact is that as a group, at the present time, in terms of ability to win out in the competitions of American life, they are not equal to most of those groups with which they will be competing. Individually, Negro Americans reach the highest peaks of achievement. But collectively, in the spectrum of American ethnic and religious and regional groups, where some get plenty and some get none, where some send eighty percent of their children to college and others pull them out of school at the 8th grade, Negroes are among the weakest.

The most difficult fact for white Americans to understand is that in these terms the circumstances of the Negro American community in recent years has probably been getting worse, not better.

​

Arguments for and against the Report come from both sides of the aisle and there are polarities among African Americans. Some see the report as prophetic, some see it as racially biased, some agree in part, some in whole, and so on. What it does do, if nothing else, is serve as a placemarker of sorts in the timeline. My contention is that there are socioeconomic factors at play that are far too intricate to dismiss with generalities, conservative platitudes, or the complacency of white privilege. No one here, as far as I know, is an economist or a sociologist, so the best we can do is sort through sources from those who are.

 

[annabenedetti]

The Moynihan Report: An Annotated Edition
A historian unpacks The Negro Family: The Case for National Action on its 50th anniversary.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The modern view of racism is merely Collectivism, obscuring all individuals for the sake of referring to people groups. It's a despicable Socialist agenda, and it's too subtle for neo-liberals to do anything but embrace.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The modern view of racism is merely Collectivism, obscuring all individuals for the sake of referring to people groups. It's a despicable Socialist agenda, and it's too subtle for neo-liberals to do anything but embrace.

Would you consider 'Creativity movement' to be 'neo-liberal'?

:think: