Mike Dwight
VIP Member
- Jul 23, 2017
- 1,756
- 54
- 85
- Banned
- #21
I,m not quite sure how to even begin to address this bizarre boatload of bovine excrement. As best as I can tell, you are suggesting that I'm a hypocrite if I'm in favor of interracial marriage , or race mixing, but against the idea of "comfort women"Hey, theres 1 male and 1 female population distribution in the whole world. I guess you support "Comfort Women" if you are against anti-race mixing. Prove to me on a slippery slope that you disapprove of the absolute scandal of "Comfort Women", in one way or another, if You personally believe, that the exploits of skill, sociability, culture, and prowess, somehow sum up to your rights to the reproductive organs of these other peoples.
https://www.history.com/news/comfort-women-japan-military-brothels-korea
Just an equal travesty that they even opened their mouths to say the one candidate was disqualified. You were kind of focused on the other topic though, and the socio-economic bubble of maybe 30% single black women and black men - white women marriages is our own psycho pathic construction, from Clarence Thomas. down to oj simpson, niel de grasse Tyson, and probably half the role models anybody looks to.
There are at least two logical fallacies in there if not more.
First it is a false equivalency fallacy. One has nothing to do with the other, except perhaps in your strange mind. And, I will add that I do not have to prove anything to you regarding what I'm for or against
In addition it is a tu quoque fallacy (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."
OK in one way most people agree there are no similarities, is that Shinto crazy samurai muthaFers just killed civilians because they represent a God or some crap in blood rituals, sure. That might not carry over. However, didn't we make Blacks and Puerto Ricans and entice many others into a nationality that isn't their own, judge them not by their own standards but by a desegregationist single national culture standard, and then spraypaint the word Love way up top whenever our boys in "Nam brought home some sexhole that doesn't speak a word of English without the least war aid, like they plaster it over Loving V Virginia. In Japan they wanted to pretend everyone in Korea was becoming an integrated one Japan, so quickly that Of Course, the Jury of Your Peers, is one Single Japanese Judge, lo and behold, I shouldn't have to explain, by economic superiority miracles, you know, the firiggin' homeland of korea was lost 80% to renting their own land from Japanese tenants, Japanese could walk up to your fruit stand steal it right off your cart, who's going to be a judge there? So I Really see Very Little in the way of clear markers, in fact, when the boys take home a Korean War Wife, its the same situation to Them, its the Same Words expressed, as when japan kidnapped 12 year old girls as bound victims to be murdered whenever they needed to cover up the "failed Geisha Problem". Say you were Looking to Conquer a Type of People Sexually with marriage?you can be every bit of caring to all the human beings around you without doing so, if there ever was any moral nugget out of the hippies and Free Love garbage. You probably can misinterpret consent, its all a slide to Hernan Cortez's seven war wives or a bastardization of Christian Marriage or like Comfort women.
Last edited: