I didn’t say “which problems are serious,” did I?[/quote]
No, but up to this point you have only really been concerned with the vile group BLM. Do you now want to expand your care level to the real problems in the black community…as in the obvious ones, the ones that are really hurting them? The ones that I have listed for you multiple times.
When the minutia regarding the police “picking on them” is used as a scapegoat for the real problems, I don’t like that much. As I said earlier the inability for real conversation about the real black problem prohibits anyone from seeking a real solution. So, everyone gather around we have a real concern here those nasty police are picking on us, and, and well if it wasn’t for that we’d all be just dandy–BULLSHIT!
Well, yes isn’t that great! But you unfortunately do not get the connection of what’s really wrong with large parts of the black community. Hey I have an idea why don’t you “analyze and express multiple views” about the REAL problem? Can you do that? Can you? No? That’s a shame because you talk so big but then you really say nothing …nothing about the real problem that is.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ve now asked you a couple times whether or not you’ve read that report. You took issue with my guess that you hadn’t – but you won’t say whether you have or not. [/quote]
Just in case you manage to miss this again.[/quote]
You missed it ^ again. How peculiar. Now, we have no choice but to assume that you aren’t familiar with the report – despite your inexplicable whining about my having assumed such.
To reiterate:
I expressed my (highly unsympathetic) view of BLM. Hard evidence (e.g., the Wilson GJ report) was adduced in support of both my criticism of the movement itself and my acknowledgement of the legitimacy of some of its fundamental grievances.
You took issue with the latter.
But you have no idea why, because you have neither read nor considered the adduced evidence (the F.P.D. investigation being one of many with which you should be familiar if you’re going to have strong opinions on this subject).
Re-read steps [2] and [3] for a good description of a buffoon. You are literally attempting to argue that particular evidence does not support a particular conclusion – without being remotely familiar with the particular evidence. Again: You are literally attempting to argue that particular evidence does not support a particular conclusion – without being remotely familiar with the particular evidence. A last time: You are literally attempting to argue that particular evidence does not support a particular conclusion – without being remotely familiar with the particular evidence. Let that sink in. Or don’t: A drop through thin air and an echoing crash to the floor are probably not going to help much anyway.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ve now asked you a couple times whether or not you’ve read that report. You took issue with my guess that you hadn’t – but you won’t say whether you have or not. [/quote]
Just in case you manage to miss this again.[/quote]
You missed it ^ again. How peculiar. Now, we have no choice but to assume that you aren’t familiar with the report – despite your inexplicable whining about my having assumed such.
To reiterate:
I expressed my (highly unsympathetic) view of BLM. Hard evidence (e.g., the Wilson GJ report) was adduced in support of both my criticism of the movement itself and my acknowledgement of the legitimacy of some of its fundamental grievances.
You took issue with the latter.
But you have no idea why, because you have neither read nor considered the adduced evidence (the F.P.D. investigation being one of many with which you should be familiar if you’re going to have strong opinions on this subject).
Re-read steps [2] and [3] for a good description of a buffoon. You are literally attempting to argue that particular evidence does not support a particular conclusion – without being remotely familiar with the particular evidence. Again: You are literally attempting to argue that particular evidence does not support a particular conclusion – without being remotely familiar with the particular evidence. A last time: You are literally attempting to argue that particular evidence does not support a particular conclusion – without being remotely familiar with the particular evidence. Let that sink in. Or don’t: A drop through thin air and an echoing crash to the floor are probably not going to help much anyway.[/quote]
I don’t have to read a report to know that BLM is a very bad thing for blacks, whites and the entire country. This is evidenced by the deaths of some Police Officers. When a large part of any particular race begins to scapegoat to avoid their real problems that pretty much holds the answer to the question is the BLM movement legitimate.
I gave you my reasoning multiple times in multiple posts did you read them?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to read a report to know
[/quote]
At long at costly last we arrive at the heart of the matter (odd that you were reluctant to disclose this, given its obviousness).
So, to summarize, I adduced hard evidence in support of two related assessments of BLM: one a plain and hostile denouncement of the “movement” and the prominent idiots within its ranks, the other an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of many of its fundamental grievances. You took some kind of vague and confused issue with the latter, claiming that the particular evidence adduced did not support the particular conclusion reached. And now we know that, ridiculously (though not exactly surprisingly, given your batting average), you did this without having looked at the evidence. Which means that you haven’t got the first clue whether or not the report I cited, and the other hundred like it, support the conclusion that many of BLM’s fundamental grievances are legitimate and data-supported.
As always, it’s been both easy and fruitless. Until next time.
Without strong political allies; and something that amounts to more than yelling, screaming and interrupting Liberal Politician’s speeches…it will all go the way of “Occupy”.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to read a report to know
At long at costly last we arrive at the heart of the matter (odd that you were reluctant to disclose this, given its obviousness).[/quote]
Wow you are a drama queen aren’t you? I never said I read the report nor do I need to read it to know that the BLM movement is no more than a scapegoat to their real problems. Which by the way you NEVER addressed!
[quote]So, to summarize, I adduced hard evidence in support of two related assessments of BLM: one a plain and hostile denouncement of the “movement” and the prominent idiots within its ranks, the other an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of many of its fundamental grievances. You took some kind of vague and confused issue with the latter, claiming that the particular evidence adduced did not support the particular conclusion reached. And now we know that, ridiculously (though not exactly surprisingly, given your batting average), you did this without having looked at the evidence. Which means that you haven’t got the first clue whether or not the report I cited, and the other hundred like it, support the conclusion that many of BLM’s fundamental grievances are legitimate and data-supported.
As always, it’s been both easy and fruitless. Until next time.[/quote]
No so fast Chauncy you never addressed the real problems in the black community. You are not going to dance your way out of this one like you do with most others you converse with. This debate was not about whether I read some half ass report (as much as you wanted it to be) was it? Yes, you tried to make it that but it wasn’t. It was about whether or not the BLM movement was legitimate. I say it is not and I have given you evidence as to why it is not. What is your retort? “you didn’t read the report na na na na.” That’s only a good response in your head. In reality you’ve not addressed the real issues as to why BLM movement is nothing more than scapegoating.
I laid out several reasons why it was not a legitimate movement. Did you address those reasons? No! You simply said “read the report”. That doesn’t win you any debate points Ralph. Get busy NOW and tell me why almost 70% of black children growing up without a father in the house is not the problem. Also, tell me why the majority of federal inmates being black is not the problem. And while you’re at it you can tell me why decades of welfare and other government subsistence programs are also not part of the problem. And you can finish by telling if the killing of four police officers because of the BLM movement is a good idea.
Without strong political allies; and something that amounts to more than yelling, screaming and interrupting Liberal Politician’s speeches…it will all go the way of “Occupy”.
At least the Tea Party understood this.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I agree with you Mufasa. But I have to be honest I did love it when they took over a hapless looking Bernie Sanders stage performance.
Bernie was right in the middle of telling a large crowd of mostly clueless empty headed, lazy 20 somethings why they don’t have to work and everything from college to beer should be free, and that they can steal money from other people who DO work to pay for everything- very dramatic good socialistic stuff…just then the BLM movement took to the stage and grabbed the microphone from old Bernie’s hand. No respect for senior citizens at all…I love it when two factions that I dislike fight with each other.
I wonder how come the BLM movement has not tried to take over a Trump rally? Could it be all those body guards who can bench 500 pounds are in the way?
I dunno it is a fun political season though isn’t it?
Without strong political allies; and something that amounts to more than yelling, screaming and interrupting Liberal Politician’s speeches…it will all go the way of “Occupy”.
At least the Tea Party understood this.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I agree with you Mufasa. But I have to be honest I did love it when they took over a hapless looking Bernie Sanders stage performance.
Bernie was right in the middle of telling a large crowd of mostly clueless empty headed, lazy 20 somethings why they don’t have to work and everything from college to beer should be free, and that they can steal money from other people who DO work to pay for everything- very dramatic good socialistic stuff…just then the BLM movement took to the stage and grabbed the microphone from old Bernie’s hand. No respect for senior citizens at all…I love it when two factions that I dislike fight with each other.
I wonder how come the BLM movement has not tried to take over a Trump rally? Could it be all those body guards who can bench 500 pounds are in the way?
I dunno it is a fun political season though isn’t it?
[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I never said I read the report nor do I need to read it to know that the BLM movement is no more than a scapegoat to their real problems. Which by the way you NEVER addressed![/quote]
You confusedly took issue with the suggestion that that report and many others like it – hard data, not the gut-level feelz of a buffoon – support the conclusion that many of the fundamental grievances driving BLM are legitimate. You’d have needed to read the report in order to deny that the evidence supports the conclusion. You didn’t read the report. Case closed.
[quote]
This debate was not about whether I read some half ass report (as much as you wanted it to be) was it? Yes, you tried to make it that but it wasn’t.[/quote]
Setting aside the fact that this exchange doesn’t deserve to be called a debate, I’ve already summarized it a few times. There’s no need for you to give us the confused, fever-dream version.
[quote]
It was about whether or not the BLM movement was legitimate. I say it is not and I have given you evidence as to why it is not. What is your retort?[/quote]
I don’t know what you mean by “the BLM movement [is] not legitimate.” A movement can encompass any combination of legitimate and illegitimate grievances and methods, and often some combination of each. But my “retort” (it isn’t a retort, because it preceded all of your babbling) is, yet again, that BLM is a sham run by propagandists and idiots but driven by many legitimate grievances as evidenced, to take one of many examples, by the fucking report adduced pages ago. You’d need to read the report in order to refute the argument outlined in the preceding sentence. You aren’t going to read the report. Case closed.
[quote]
Get busy NOW and tell me why almost 70% of black children growing up without a father in the house is not the problem. Also, tell me why the majority of federal inmates being black is not the problem. And while you’re at it you can tell me why decades of welfare and other government subsistence programs are also not part of the problem. And you can finish by telling if the killing of four police officers because of the BLM movement is a good idea.[/quote]
I never said any of these things weren’t problems. In fact I explicitly invoked high rates of black criminality pages ago. That makes this ^ a straw man and you a buffoon.
It’s pretty simple, you hung your hat on the fact that the precious report had all the answers. When I threw some hard facts at you what did you do? You ran and hid behind “the report”. You’re not better than a wide eyed left wing arrogant ass.
Go peddle your crap with someone who might actually buy into it. No one on this board is believing your drivel, nor have you changed even one mind. How does that feel? You have wasted several posts talking about how smart you are to people who are basically laughing at you.
You have no defense, you have no answers for the primary reasons that much of the black community is in trouble. In short, you got nothing kid!
Maybe you can change your name and come back in as someone else. If you decide to take that route I suggest you drop the arrogance and the far left wing lean.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM denies reality when it keens about Michael Brown and lies to itself when it willfully ignores the fact that the violent crime rate among young black men will always have a necessary and direct relationship with the nature of interactions between that demographic and law enforcement.[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM is a sham run by propagandists and idiots[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
smh says that the BLM movement is good. And he says that we don’t have the right to question it because we are not black.
[/quote]
Conclusive evidence that you’re a fuckin idiot. No way around it at this point.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM denies reality when it keens about Michael Brown and lies to itself when it willfully ignores the fact that the violent crime rate among young black men will always have a necessary and direct relationship with the nature of interactions between that demographic and law enforcement.[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
BLM is a sham run by propagandists and idiots[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
smh says that the BLM movement is good. And he says that we don’t have the right to question it because we are not black.
[/quote]
Conclusive evidence that you’re a fuckin idiot. No way around it at this point.[/quote]
Wake up man, this is mainly about you dodging the primary questions that I had for you regarding the problem that many black communities have. I listed them for you multiple times. Calling me names does not help your case, or answer even one question that I asked.
