CDZ Do black lives matter or do ALL lives matter?

[Esmeralda]

Yes, black lives matter. In fact, what I can see, that white women get eye dis colorations and wrinkles with age, blacks don't. So, if the black girl is in shape, her life will matter a lot longer than white girls.

 

[FA_Q2]

In no way does the slogan 'Black lives matter' suggest that other lives do not matter. It simply express the concern that the number of blacks being killed by police, or even by each other, is not acceptable and not something we should resign ourselves to.

Umm, except that in proportion to the criminal statistics... it is actually White poeple who are more often killed by police?
So again... why isn't it that ALL lives matter?

Then again,
Maybe you are just anti-White? Not an accusation, just a question.
Maybe you are just anti-Asian? Not an accusation, just a question.
Maybe you are just anti-Semetic? Not an accusation, just a question.
Maybe you are just anti-(Something else)? Not an accusation, just a question.

You see, when you specify a race on such a topic it indicates a supremacism. In the case of "black lives matter" Vs. "ALL lives matter", as presented in the Dem debate.
Well again, ALL lives matter is inclusive and rational... saying only "black lives matter" is racist, exclusive and irrational.

It's not even a catchy slogan, it's just blatant racism!

And where might these statistics be?

AFAIK, such statistics are not really kept.

 

[oldsoul]

It is very interesting to me that the same people who claim that MLK is one of their heros, support such a slogan as "black lives matter". In his "I have a dream" speech, did MLK not say that he had a dream that one day his children would not be "judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"? So, with just this one reference, I would say that it is unlikely that MLK would support such a slogan, prefering to recogize that ALL lives matter. As stated several time already, the latter is an INCLUSIVE statement while the former is an EXCLUSIVE statement, and therefore contrary to his teachings.
Also, as I remember from by history studies, MLK was all about NON-VIOLENT protest, and accually, I believe, chastised rioters, and race-baters/bigots/racists on BOTH sides of the issue. It does not matter if you are black, white, or purple with orange polka dots, racism is racism. If we are to ever become an inclusive society, we MUST reject ALL labels, and slogans that are not INCLUSIVE.
I understand that many supporters of "Black Lives Matter" beleive that they are discriminated against, unfairly targeted, and/or seen as less-than. But saying "Black Lives Matter" is, in reality, no different that saying White Lives Matter. Can we all agree that ALL lives matter, black, white, asian, hispanic, jewish, ect.? If so, then why do some get behind a race specific slogan? Is race really the issue? Or is it the perception of unfair treatment of some, whether justified or not. The point is, there are people who beleive they are being unfairly treated in our society, that is the problem, not that they happened to belong to one group or another.

 

[Asclepias]

It is very interesting to me that the same people who claim that MLK is one of their heros, support such a slogan as "black lives matter". In his "I have a dream" speech, did MLK not say that he had a dream that one day his children would not be "judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"? So, with just this one reference, I would say that it is unlikely that MLK would support such a slogan, prefering to recogize that ALL lives matter. As stated several time already, the latter is an INCLUSIVE statement while the former is an EXCLUSIVE statement, and therefore contrary to his teachings.
Also, as I remember from by history studies, MLK was all about NON-VIOLENT protest, and accually, I believe, chastised rioters, and race-baters/bigots/racists on BOTH sides of the issue. It does not matter if you are black, white, or purple with orange polka dots, racism is racism. If we are to ever become an inclusive society, we MUST reject ALL labels, and slogans that are not INCLUSIVE.
I understand that many supporters of "Black Lives Matter" beleive that they are discriminated against, unfairly targeted, and/or seen as less-than. But saying "Black Lives Matter" is, in reality, no different that saying White Lives Matter. Can we all agree that ALL lives matter, black, white, asian, hispanic, jewish, ect.? If so, then why do some get behind a race specific slogan? Is race really the issue? Or is it the perception of unfair treatment of some, whether justified or not. The point is, there are people who beleive they are being unfairly treated in our society, that is the problem, not that they happened to belong to one group or another.

I totally disagree with your claim regarding MLK. The quote you are referencing does not mean what you think it means. "One day" means sometime in the future after all grievances have been addressed and corrected. MLK supported AA exclusively for Black people before the concept of AA was ever created. Of course he would not have supported any violence but thats not what BLM is about.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

Its not a competition, no one suggests (except butthurt whites) that black lives are MORE IMPORTANT than all lives.

 

[Jackson]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

Of course all lives matter. But you are missing the point. Maybe because of your excessive partisanship or inability to see the world from another's view point.

Black Lives Matter is a response to blacks being shot by police seemingly without cause. Very few unarmed whites are shot by cops compared to the number of blacks. That's what it's all about.

I believe you are missing an important variable. Black Lives Matter is a response to blacks attacking police officers.

 

[Jackson]

It is very interesting to me that the same people who claim that MLK is one of their heros, support such a slogan as "black lives matter". In his "I have a dream" speech, did MLK not say that he had a dream that one day his children would not be "judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"? So, with just this one reference, I would say that it is unlikely that MLK would support such a slogan, prefering to recogize that ALL lives matter. As stated several time already, the latter is an INCLUSIVE statement while the former is an EXCLUSIVE statement, and therefore contrary to his teachings.
Also, as I remember from by history studies, MLK was all about NON-VIOLENT protest, and accually, I believe, chastised rioters, and race-baters/bigots/racists on BOTH sides of the issue. It does not matter if you are black, white, or purple with orange polka dots, racism is racism. If we are to ever become an inclusive society, we MUST reject ALL labels, and slogans that are not INCLUSIVE.
I understand that many supporters of "Black Lives Matter" beleive that they are discriminated against, unfairly targeted, and/or seen as less-than. But saying "Black Lives Matter" is, in reality, no different that saying White Lives Matter. Can we all agree that ALL lives matter, black, white, asian, hispanic, jewish, ect.? If so, then why do some get behind a race specific slogan? Is race really the issue? Or is it the perception of unfair treatment of some, whether justified or not. The point is, there are people who beleive they are being unfairly treated in our society, that is the problem, not that they happened to belong to one group or another.

I totally disagree with your claim regarding MLK. The quote you are referencing does not mean what you think it means. "One day" means sometime in the future after all grievances have been addressed and corrected. MLK supported AA exclusively for Black people before the concept of AA was ever created. Of course he would not have supported any violence but thats not what BLM is about.

It originated by blacks being angry after the black was shot in a scuffle. If they had followed demands, their life would have been safe...and mattered.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Black Lives Matter is a response to blacks attacking police officers.

I thought this was the clean debate zone? I didnt know you could make alternate realities here.

Because BLM movement is about the unequal treatment and abuse blacks suffer at the hands of law enforcement. Now if someone posts here and doesnt know that simple fact then...I mean, come on

 

[oldsoul]

What MLK was referencing could be, and likely will be, debated until the end of time. My point is the ideal he set forth. The point is not whether or not black lives specificly matter, or at least it shouldn't be. The point is ALL lives matter, so a slogan such as black lives matter is, in and of itself, counter-productive in solving the underlying issue, and is therefore divisive in nature. Isn't the point of the movement, for lack of a better term, to work towards ending divisions in our society?

 

[Asclepias]

It is very interesting to me that the same people who claim that MLK is one of their heros, support such a slogan as "black lives matter". In his "I have a dream" speech, did MLK not say that he had a dream that one day his children would not be "judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"? So, with just this one reference, I would say that it is unlikely that MLK would support such a slogan, prefering to recogize that ALL lives matter. As stated several time already, the latter is an INCLUSIVE statement while the former is an EXCLUSIVE statement, and therefore contrary to his teachings.
Also, as I remember from by history studies, MLK was all about NON-VIOLENT protest, and accually, I believe, chastised rioters, and race-baters/bigots/racists on BOTH sides of the issue. It does not matter if you are black, white, or purple with orange polka dots, racism is racism. If we are to ever become an inclusive society, we MUST reject ALL labels, and slogans that are not INCLUSIVE.
I understand that many supporters of "Black Lives Matter" beleive that they are discriminated against, unfairly targeted, and/or seen as less-than. But saying "Black Lives Matter" is, in reality, no different that saying White Lives Matter. Can we all agree that ALL lives matter, black, white, asian, hispanic, jewish, ect.? If so, then why do some get behind a race specific slogan? Is race really the issue? Or is it the perception of unfair treatment of some, whether justified or not. The point is, there are people who beleive they are being unfairly treated in our society, that is the problem, not that they happened to belong to one group or another.

I totally disagree with your claim regarding MLK. The quote you are referencing does not mean what you think it means. "One day" means sometime in the future after all grievances have been addressed and corrected. MLK supported AA exclusively for Black people before the concept of AA was ever created. Of course he would not have supported any violence but thats not what BLM is about.

It originated by blacks being angry after the black was shot in a scuffle. If they had followed demands, their life would have been safe...and mattered.

What are you talking about and what does your reply have to do with what I said?

 

[Asclepias]

What MLK was referencing could be, and likely will be, debated until the end of time. My point is the ideal he set forth. The point is not whether or not black lives specificly matter, or at least it shouldn't be. The point is ALL lives matter, so a slogan such as black lives matter is, in and of itself, counter-productive in solving the underlying issue, and is therefore divisive in nature. Isn't the point of the movement, for lack of a better term, to work towards ending divisions in our society?

It can only be debated by people not knowing what he meant. To the Black population its pretty clear what he meant especially in light of his many pro Black stances. Basically he was saying he would be glad when whites stopped putting obstacles in the way of Black people.

No the point is not all lives matter. The point is Black lives matters. If they meant to say "all" then thats what they would have said. Blacks didnt create the divisiveness. Whites did. If they want the divisiveness to end all of the sudden then they need to correct their actions and thinking to reflect that stance.

 

[oldsoul]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

Its not a competition, no one suggests (except butthurt whites) that black lives are MORE IMPORTANT than all lives.

Then why say black lives matter, and not all lives matter?
Seriously, what do you think the public response would be if someone started an organization that called itself "WhiteLivesMatter"? If that sounds racist to you, then please explain how BLM does not.

 

[oldsoul]

What MLK was referencing could be, and likely will be, debated until the end of time. My point is the ideal he set forth. The point is not whether or not black lives specificly matter, or at least it shouldn't be. The point is ALL lives matter, so a slogan such as black lives matter is, in and of itself, counter-productive in solving the underlying issue, and is therefore divisive in nature. Isn't the point of the movement, for lack of a better term, to work towards ending divisions in our society?

It can only be debated by people not knowing what he meant. To the Black population its pretty clear what he meant especially in light of his many pro Black stances. Basically he was saying he would be glad when whites stopped putting obstacles in the way of Black people.

No the point is not all lives matter. The point is Black lives matters. If they meant to say "all" then thats what they would have said. Blacks didnt create the divisiveness. Whites did. If they want the divisiveness to end all of the sudden then they need to correct their actions and thinking to reflect that stance.

Are you proposing to know what he meant? Did you ask him? where you there? If not, then how could you possibly know what he meant? We can look at his stances on other things and make assumptions, but that is all.

 

[Asclepias]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

Its not a competition, no one suggests (except butthurt whites) that black lives are MORE IMPORTANT than all lives.

Then why say black lives matter, and not all lives matter?
Seriously, what do you think the public response would be if someone started an organization that called itself "WhiteLivesMatter"? If that sounds racist to you, then please explain how BLM does not.

This is why I say you dont know what MLK meant. You are having a hard time understanding what Black lives matters means. It has nothing to do with other lives. Think of it like this. If someone said rhinos were becoming endangered and all rhinos mattered wouldnt an intelligent person know that meant someone was calling attention specifically to the plight of rhinos and not lowering the value of say elephants?

 

[Asclepias]

What MLK was referencing could be, and likely will be, debated until the end of time. My point is the ideal he set forth. The point is not whether or not black lives specificly matter, or at least it shouldn't be. The point is ALL lives matter, so a slogan such as black lives matter is, in and of itself, counter-productive in solving the underlying issue, and is therefore divisive in nature. Isn't the point of the movement, for lack of a better term, to work towards ending divisions in our society?

It can only be debated by people not knowing what he meant. To the Black population its pretty clear what he meant especially in light of his many pro Black stances. Basically he was saying he would be glad when whites stopped putting obstacles in the way of Black people.

No the point is not all lives matter. The point is Black lives matters. If they meant to say "all" then thats what they would have said. Blacks didnt create the divisiveness. Whites did. If they want the divisiveness to end all of the sudden then they need to correct their actions and thinking to reflect that stance.

Are you proposing to know what he meant? Did you ask him? where you there? If not, then how could you possibly know what he meant? We can look at his stances on other things and make assumptions, but that is all.

Of course I know what he meant. So does every other Black person. Even if his words were said in a vaacum there would be no debate. The fact that he was definitely pro Black and supported Black only programs just provides documented proof to those silly enough to believe he meant something else. BTW my grandfather was there and I know some other people that knew him personally.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

Its not a competition, no one suggests (except butthurt whites) that black lives are MORE IMPORTANT than all lives.

Then why say black lives matter, and not all lives matter?

Because no one but butthurt whites see this as a this or that argument. This is breast cancer month, yet there is no one asking why isnt anyone saying all cancers matter because when its not about race white people get more clear headed. Throw race in and they scream what about me?

Seriously, what do you think the public response would be if someone started an organization that called itself "WhiteLivesMatter"? If that sounds racist to you, then please explain how BLM does not.

The response would be worldwide laughter and mocking of whites and their "I have it hard" stories. That would make a hilarious Broadway show. Instead of the Color Purple it could be like The Cafe Latte.

 

[jillian]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

ah...more white male victimhood...

I suspect it's not that other lives don't matter. it's that as an issue, it's not very often that the police shoot and kill unarmed white teenage males.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

ah...more white male victimhood...

I suspect it's not that other lives don't matter. it's that as an issue, it's not very often that the police shoot and kill unarmed white teenage males.

They know this and the idiot act only hurts their credibility

 

[jillian]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

ah...more white male victimhood...

I suspect it's not that other lives don't matter. it's that as an issue, it's not very often that the police shoot and kill unarmed white teenage males.

They know this and the idiot act only hurts their credibility

it's their usual song and dance.

you'd think they'd be bored of it by now.

 

[Rocko]

Are black lives more important than ALL lives?
The democratic party clearly values black lives are superior to any other, what say you?

Hey doesn't this mean that democrats are racist? Seriously... this whole black people are the most important people... isn't that by definition racially supremacist?

ah...more white male victimhood...

I suspect it's not that other lives don't matter. it's that as an issue, it's not very often that the police shoot and kill unarmed white teenage males.

Well statistically police kill twice as many whites as they do blacks. Face it you're a racist, and you're trying to overcompensate for your racism by being a black activist. Guess what? You're still a racist.