Quote:But idk... ask the serial killer oh no - i might not make it out alive.
-
Controversial questions..? Just to pass the time
-
Quote:
Hey, you're the one who said "white women" and "black men"...swap the two around and all else you can get is "white man" and "black women". What I said stands true...and comes from personal experience and observation multiple times over the years. I will also point out that you do not know what it means to be a white man anymore than I do what it means to be a black woman, and nothing is going the change that. The better we try and understand each other, don't you think?
Dude! How are you not getting this? I don't understand how much more I can possibly elaborate for you to understand. I said "white women" and "black men" because in general they are in fact the ones that are focused upon in terms of racial and sexual discrimination. Black women are not in that category rather they are seen as invisible along with hispanic men and women and asian men and women. Why? Because those first two groups are the MAIN issues of importances in those regards. I don't understand how you're not getting this.
And from the arguments I've seen you involved in your experiences don't really seem to say much... ? As in they seem to be very few and not really understanding of the situation. And you're right, I absolutely don't know what it's like to have the world cater to my every whim :scream_cat: must be rough.
Quote:
Yeah...glad I waited. Your question made it seem to me as if they didn't allow houses to become safe-houses because the owners of the houses didn't speak English. I don't think the woman should have needed to speak English to be allowed inside...but I also don't think safe-houses should be required, in an english speaking country, to have translaters on hand for those who don't speak the language. English is the language of this country and, legally or not, if you decide to live here you better learn it....not expect others to run around providing translation services for you! (Pet peave of mine, in case you missed it.)
This is true.
-
Originally Posted By: JapanFan14 Quote:Hey, you're the one who said "white women" and "black men"...swap the two around and all else you can get is "white man" and "black women". What I said stands true...and comes from personal experience and observation multiple times over the years. I will also point out that you do not know what it means to be a white man anymore than I do what it means to be a black woman, and nothing is going the change that. The better we try and understand each other, don't you think?Dude! How are you not getting this? I don't understand how much more I can possibly elaborate for you to understand. I said "white women" and "black men" because in general they are in fact the ones that are focused upon in terms of racial and sexual discrimination. Black women are not in that category rather they are seen as invisible along with hispanic men and women and asian men and women. Why? Because those first two groups are the MAIN issues of importances in those regards. I don't understand how you're not getting this.And from the arguments I've seen you involved in your experiences don't really seem to say much... ? As in they seem to be very few and not really understanding of the situation. And you're right, I absolutely don't know what it's like to have the world cater to my every whim must be rough. Well, not much for me to say except that your theory doesn't meet with reality. Folks where I work now (and in other places) tip-toe on eggshells around black women because of their reputation for instigating lawsuits over the smallest of things. I say black women because there is no such stigma attached to women of "other color". So while the media may paint things one way, the reality is that it's not how the media paints it out there (surprise, surprise).Oh...and as far as being a white male is concerned, we are the most expendable group out there. A black woman would have to try real hard to get fired (because of aformentioned reasons) while I would be fired for sneazing the wrong way. Again, the reality doesn't meat with the liberal hype you've bought into. Thank you afirmative action (which is, in reality, discrimination [how a liberal would use the word] against whites).
-
Quote:Well, not much for me to say except that your theory doesn't meet with reality. Folks where I work now (and in other places) tip-toe on eggshells around black women because of their reputation for instigating lawsuits over the smallest of things. I say black women because there is no such stigma attached to women of "other color". So while the media may paint things one way, the reality is that it's not how the media paints it out there (surprise, surprise).You can't use your own experiences to represent the majority. Just because you view it one way doesn't mean that's how others see it. I'm speaking on behalf of those that I researched and interviewed, not merely on my experiences alone. I don't consider my experiences to be the majority. But as I said before, you see it entirely different than I do but you almost seem like you don't even care or try to see it from a different perspective. When someone tries to explain something to me that I'm not understanding I usually try to separate my mindset from myself and take on their view of things to truly grasp the entire effect. Quote:Oh...and as far as being a white male is concerned, we are the most expendable group out there. A black woman would have to try real hard to get fired (because of aformentioned reasons) while I would be fired for sneazing the wrong way. Again, the reality doesn't meat with the liberal hype you've bought into. Thank you afirmative action (which is, in reality, discrimination [how a liberal would use the word] against whites).And once again, you're only viewing it from YOUR perspective, your beliefs. Because as someone who was born in America with most family as immigrants from Third countries who had the most difficult time ever trying to attain a job let alone an education and keep it, and who is pressured as one of the first generation to go so far as college, I beg to differ on your statement. "Affirmative action ain't shiznit" in the words of my cousin. In the black and latin community, it doesn't take much to be fired from a job especially one of high status. And it's not that shocking when you realize that you're often overlooked for a job. You speak as if you are a minority when in fact you have no idea. Have you suffered from the objectives of affirmative action, personally? And by the way, affirmative action was first established for white men after they returned home from war and needed to attain jobs.
-
Quote: Quote:Oh...and as far as being a white male is concerned, we are the most expendable group out there. A black woman would have to try real hard to get fired (because of aformentioned reasons) while I would be fired for sneazing the wrong way. Again, the reality doesn't meat with the liberal hype you've bought into. Thank you afirmative action (which is, in reality, discrimination [how a liberal would use the word] against whites).And once again, you're only viewing it from YOUR perspective, your beliefs. Because as someone who was born in America with most family as immigrants from Third countries who had the most difficult time ever trying to attain a job let alone an education and keep it, and who is pressured as one of the first generation to go so far as college, I beg to differ on your statement. "Affirmative action ain't shiznit" in the words of my cousin. In the black and latin community, it doesn't take much to be fired from a job especially one of high status. And it's not that shocking when you realize that you're often overlooked for a job. You speak as if you are a minority when in fact you have no idea. Have you suffered from the objectives of affirmative action, personally? And by the way, affirmative action was first established for white men after they returned home from war and needed to attain jobs. Vets were granted preference based on their participation in the war...not on the color of their skin. I have no problem with that. But granting preference based on skin color is racism...plain and simple. Where you never told by your parents that two "wrongs" don't make a "right"?
-
*Do you guys think it's possible for a man to rape his wife or a prostitute since "technically they belong to him"? Yeah its possible for them to do that but the question should be is it right?? HELL NO ITS NOT!! That is beyond wrong. No man should ever force his wife to have sex with him.. let alone a random woman!! Stupid men... * Do you think that pornography has influence on people who become rapists and serial killers? Especially with that interview with Ted Bundy minutes before he was executed and he said that after being in jail for so long, most of the mass serial killers he associated with were addicted to pornography as was he. Do you think that an addiction to pornography can mess up how men view and treat women? No I dont think so. I think any man who is in jail for a long period of time could get addicted to porn because it could be one of the only forms of pleasure they experience. I think there are too many different types of porn that it cant really change the way men view women. * It seems like when people refer to sexual discrimination they mainly pertain to white women and when they refer to racial discrimination they mainly pertain to black men which in the end renders the issues of women of color invisible. Do you agree with that? Nope * Do you think it's right for shelter homes for victims of domestic abuse to be rejected because they don't meet certain qualifications such as speaking English? NO DEFINETLY NOT!! Thats wrong.. but i do think there are some things people should be disqualified if they dont speak english. * A Mexican civil rights activist said that it's inappropriate to say "illegal immigrant" because no human being is illegal. They maybe in the country illegally but they themselves are not illegal. It would be better to say that they are undocumented immigrants. And that to refer to someone as illegal can be seen on the same principles that initiated the Holocaust by it's view of Jews. Do you agree with that? No its the dumbest thing ive ever heard. they are illegially in this country which makes them and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT * And the Equal Rights Amendment that was proposed over 2 decades ago has yet to be taken into affect because the amount of votes hasn't met the number requirement. The 15(?) states to not vote for the ERA are mainly southern states. Many people attribute this to the fact that it's mainly the "Bible belt" of America... do you think that has anything to do with it? probably.
-
Quote:
Vets were granted preference based on their participation in the war...not on the color of their skin. I have no problem with that. But granting preference based on skin color is racism...plain and simple. Where you never told by your parents that two "wrongs" don't make a "right"?
Wow. um. ok, bud. Denying people a position in the work place because of the color of their skin is ALSO racism. Maybe... just maybe... oh I don't know... they wouldn't have affirmative action if it wasn't for the fact that hispanics, blacks, and asians were being turned away because of racism. I guess you forgot about that too?
-
Originally Posted By: JapanFan14 Quote:Vets were granted preference based on their participation in the war...not on the color of their skin. I have no problem with that. But granting preference based on skin color is racism...plain and simple. Where you never told by your parents that two "wrongs" don't make a "right"? Wow. um. ok, bud. Denying people a position in the work place because of the color of their skin is ALSO racism. Maybe... just maybe... oh I don't know... they wouldn't have affirmative action if it wasn't for the fact that hispanics, blacks, and asians were being turned away because of racism. I guess you forgot about that too? I didn't forget about anything. But it is clear that you do not understand the concept of turning the other cheak. You are, instead, employing the worldly concept of an eye for an eye.You are suggesting that because blacks, etc, were treated with racism that it's now OK for whites to be treated back with racism. Either it's wrong, or it's not. If it's not, you've got no case to make...if it is wrong then you are saying it's OK to do something wrong back to somebody else if they first did it to you. In other words, it's OK when you do it...but not when somebody else does it to you. That's a double standard.If something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. And it should no longer be done to anybody. At all. Ever. The solution here is to make the extra effort necessary to insure blacks (and other "minorities"...all of us, actually) get the same quality of education. Then it is up to each of us as to what we do with our opportunities. It's the wrong thing to do to lower the bar for a black person who's less qualified than somebody else who's not black. As I said before, that's racism...and it is wrong yesterday, today and tomorrow.
-
Quote: You are suggesting that because blacks, etc, were treated with racism that it's now OK for whites to be treated back with racism. Either it's wrong, or it's not. If it's not, you've got no case to make...if it is wrong then you are saying it's OK to do something wrong back to somebody else if they first did it to you. In other words, it's OK when you do it...but not when somebody else does it to you. That's a double standard.mmmkay... so, not agreeing with the entirety of affirmative action, how do you propose to make sure that hispanics, asians, blacks, and Native Americans can attain jobs without being discriminated against and turned away because of their race? Quote:If something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. And it should no longer be done to anybody. At all. Ever. The solution here is to make the extra effort necessary to insure blacks (and other "minorities"...all of us, actually) get the same quality of education. Then it is up to each of us as to what we do with our opportunities. It's the wrong thing to do to lower the bar for a black person who's less qualified than somebody else who's not black. As I said before, that's racism...and it is wrong yesterday, today and tomorrow.How do you insure that minorities receive the the same quality of education to attain a job when they are in neighborhoods and communities that are poverty-stricken with a low standard of education caused by many factors such as being discriminated against when trying to attain a job or higher education? What about communities that can't afford proper education?Please don't think I'm being snippy (which I seem to come off as apparently ) but I want some ideas so I can formulate solutions of my own. Nothing would make me happier than to see the proper advancement of a poverty-stricken and violence-ridden community. Sometimes though, it seems like nothing is being done or can be done about it. It's almost like those communities are left to be that way without further assistance from the gov.
-
thor will be shocked to hear that I pretty much agree with him on this. I don't think quotas or affirmative action are helpful in the long run, because they tend to perpetuate differences. Pushing someone into a college program they didn't quite make the entry grade for is particularly unhelpful, because starting a program at the bottom of the class is a bad way to start, and these people, I feel, are being set up to fail. But even when we are speaking of a job, if the minority person is good at the job there is still the stigma of the supposition by other workers that that person only got it because of affirmative action; while if that person is not good at the job the opinion of that minority in the eyes of other workers is lowered.In addition I do agree with thor that replacing one injustice with another is not right. (Though I can't agree with his use of the concept of turning the other cheek - surely turning the other cheek is something we are called upon to do ourselves for others, not expect others to do for us.)I agree with thor that in the long run the answer is better education. I am surprised that he puts forward the concept of educational socialism, but I think it is the only way - money has to be redistributed to bring up the standard of schools in poor neighbourhoods - I think that is essential.
-
Socialized education would mean the Fed runs it...which I disagree with. The Fed should be in charge of setting a goal and getting things equalized between the states with regard to that goal (basically, throwing the required money at it)...but the state should be the entity in control of things. Right now, the state has to meet certain Fed requirements to get Fed funding, and can't function without that funding...leaving the Fed, realistically, in control. But I'd drive it down even further than the state. For example, in 5th generation farmland where the folks are going to be farmers (or at least some of them) a farming curriculum makes sense...manufacturing does not. However, manufacturing would fit with Detroit. Inner city schools need a distractive form of education that helps keep them out of trouble. Eliminating wood shop, electronic shop, the arts and sports programs at those schools would be stupid...but those are exactly the programs that get cut when funds get tight. So, having a set of goals, with Fed aid to meet them (when necessary), along with decentralized curriculum in the remaining areas, makes for a diversified yet beneficial and supportive education system that meets the needs of the people. Curriculum such as "women studies" (which is actually thinly-veiled feminism) serves no purpose but to disturb the campus in general by inciting misandry, and forwarding yet another liberal agenda...and in many cases, is funded by the state (ie. the tax-payer). Which leads us to another problem...that being, liberals and their agenda have heavily infiltrated our education system. Something needs to be done to curb their BS. Then, when all is functioning basically as it should, the Fed needs to step away from it (something they, historically, find very difficult to do).That's it, in a nutshell. Sure...easier said than done. But the main problem, as I see it, is the same problem (or one of them) that we have today...too many opportunities for scumbags to syphen money off into their own pet-projects instead of doing their jobs with accountability and integrity.
-
- Do you guys think it's possible for a man to rape his wife or a prostitute since "technically they belong to him"?Really? They belong to me?I never had it in my head that my wife belongs to me. I also value her as more then a fuck hole and cum receptacle. * Do you think that pornography has influence on people who become rapists and serial killers? Especially with that interview with Ted Bundy minutes before he was executed and he said that after being in jail for so long, most of the mass serial killers he associated with were addicted to pornography as was he. Do you think that an addiction to pornography can mess up how men view and treat women?I am very in to porn! I have never raped or killed a woman, for that matter i never raped or killed a man, or a child.I think the connection to it is all bullshit, but will admit that some people are fucked enough in the head that they could justify actions based on porno.* It seems like when people refer to sexual discrimination they mainly pertain to white women and when they refer to racial discrimination they mainly pertain to black men which in the end renders the issues of women of color invisible. Do you agree with that?I have never seen this. sexual discrimination can be against anyone of any color, including men.as to racial, I most often see it referred to as against blacks, men and women alike.* Do you think it's right for shelter homes for victims of domestic abuse to be rejected because they don't meet certain qualifications such as speaking English?I think it should be based on strictly the abuse.* A Mexican civil rights activist said that it's inappropriate to say "illegal immigrant" because no human being is illegal. They maybe in the country illegally but they themselves are not illegal. It would be better to say that they are undocumented immigrants. And that to refer to someone as illegal can be seen on the same principles that initiated the Holocaust by it's view of Jews. Do you agree with that?Fuck no I do not agree with that.They came here (or there, or where ever, illegally, they already committed a crime by illegally entering the country, thus making them a criminal from day one, even if no other crime is ever committed. They are illegal.* And the Equal Rights Amendment that was proposed over 2 decades ago has yet to be taken into affect because the amount of votes hasn't met the number requirement. The 15(?) states to not vote for the ERA are mainly southern states. Many people attribute this to the fact that it's mainly the "Bible belt" of America... do you think that has anything to do with it?I do. The bible says men are great, women are the servants of the men. One more part of christian dogma I disagree with.