CDZ What is White Privilege?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So are you saying blacks are not responsible for their reputation? Are you say that their reputation is false?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that we have to check our impulses to use what might be characteristic of a group to decide how to interact with individual members. See, Keys thinks all women are irrational, as he's said several times, so he keeps trying to address my arguments in that way. He also seems to think that women generally respond to sexually demeaning comments by shying away from the confrontation, so he tried that, too.

Yes... that is what she's saying. Because that is what Left-think requires must be said... . One can't BE a Leftist and demand personal responsibility.

Please don't answer for me. That's not at all what I'm saying.

Your being dishonest. Your entire argument is that blacks are not responsible for their reputation.

No, it is that individuals shouldn't be held accountable for the reputation of a group.

Again you're confused... and this time by RELEVANCE.

You assign rape as being common to men, thus men should be seen as 'Rapists', despite men having written law which precludes rape as being acceptable and establishing death as the penalty for such.

And this even as you promote 'individuals' as being responsible for themselves, and that individual behavior should never been seen as relevant to the group... THIS AS ENORMOUS GROUPS OF BLACKS ARE BURNING DOWN AN ENTIRE TOWN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And yet, men commit so many rapes, and no, there's no law that rapists are to be executed.

See, neither group condones the actions by the bad few. As much as you want to pretend that masses of black people are just fine with theft, looting, murder, and assault. Because then you can blame every black person.

Actually, until the Left's (Femine reasoning)contest against such, Rape was routinely adjudicated through summary execution, in the United States.

And, it should be noted, that when the Left is rinsed from the US Culture, we, the Americans will re-institute reason into the law, returning justice for such.

See: Coker and Kennedy... wherein the Left brought the contest against the death penalty for the rape of woman and children, respectively.

 

[ricechickie]

So are you saying blacks are not responsible for their reputation? Are you say that their reputation is false?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that we have to check our impulses to use what might be characteristic of a group to decide how to interact with individual members. See, Keys thinks all women are irrational, as he's said several times, so he keeps trying to address my arguments in that way. He also seems to think that women generally respond to sexually demeaning comments by shying away from the confrontation, so he tried that, too.

Yes... that is what she's saying. Because that is what Left-think requires must be said... . One can't BE a Leftist and demand personal responsibility.

Please don't answer for me. That's not at all what I'm saying.

Your being dishonest. Your entire argument is that blacks are not responsible for their reputation.

No, it is that individuals shouldn't be held accountable for the reputation of a group.

Again you're confused... and this time by RELEVANCE.

You assign rape as being common to men, thus men should be seen as 'Rapists', despite men having written law which precludes rape as being acceptable and establishing death as the penalty for such.

And this even as you promote 'individuals' as being responsible for themselves, and that individual behavior should never been seen as relevant to the group... THIS AS ENORMOUS GROUPS OF BLACKS ARE BURNING DOWN AN ENTIRE TOWN!

Which gender commits more rape? It is men.

And worldwide, men do systematically commit rape as a form of warfare. But you claim that men don't condone rape.

Your definition that Ferguson tells us all we need to know about what blacks think is disingenuous. There is no evidence that all or most black people condone this behavior.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So are you saying blacks are not responsible for their reputation? Are you say that their reputation is false?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that we have to check our impulses to use what might be characteristic of a group to decide how to interact with individual members. See, Keys thinks all women are irrational, as he's said several times, so he keeps trying to address my arguments in that way. He also seems to think that women generally respond to sexually demeaning comments by shying away from the confrontation, so he tried that, too.

Yes... that is what she's saying. Because that is what Left-think requires must be said... . One can't BE a Leftist and demand personal responsibility.

Please don't answer for me. That's not at all what I'm saying.

Your being dishonest. Your entire argument is that blacks are not responsible for their reputation.

No, it is that individuals shouldn't be held accountable for the reputation of a group.

Again you're confused... and this time by RELEVANCE.

You assign rape as being common to men, thus men should be seen as 'Rapists', despite men having written law which precludes rape as being acceptable and establishing death as the penalty for such.

And this even as you promote 'individuals' as being responsible for themselves, and that individual behavior should never been seen as relevant to the group... THIS AS ENORMOUS GROUPS OF BLACKS ARE BURNING DOWN AN ENTIRE TOWN!

Which gender commits more rape? It is men.

And that the female is incapable of doing so to a man, we're suppose to do what, just pretend that its possible?

So for your thesis to be seen as reasonable, all that is required is the suspension of reason itself?

Now folks, the same construct that is being applied here by the opposing contributor is the one being used in Ferguson: 'A Cop Killed a Black Kid and that's murder. He wasn't punished so whitey condones murder. KILL WHITEY and we'll do that by BURNING DOWN OUR OWN TOWN!"

It's ludicrous... wholly invalid in its logical construct and unsound in its intellectual integrity.

All of which follows, since the reasoning the opposing contributor is advancing is the irrational bent of the female and it is the female who most often exclusively raised the idiots who are burning down their own town, as a means to KILL WHITEY, for a perfectly justified shooting of a lunatic who was unjustly attacking an innocent man who was DOING HIS JOB!

 

[ricechickie]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that we have to check our impulses to use what might be characteristic of a group to decide how to interact with individual members. See, Keys thinks all women are irrational, as he's said several times, so he keeps trying to address my arguments in that way. He also seems to think that women generally respond to sexually demeaning comments by shying away from the confrontation, so he tried that, too.

Please don't answer for me. That's not at all what I'm saying.

Your being dishonest. Your entire argument is that blacks are not responsible for their reputation.

No, it is that individuals shouldn't be held accountable for the reputation of a group.

Again you're confused... and this time by RELEVANCE.

You assign rape as being common to men, thus men should be seen as 'Rapists', despite men having written law which precludes rape as being acceptable and establishing death as the penalty for such.

And this even as you promote 'individuals' as being responsible for themselves, and that individual behavior should never been seen as relevant to the group... THIS AS ENORMOUS GROUPS OF BLACKS ARE BURNING DOWN AN ENTIRE TOWN!

Which gender commits more rape? It is men.

And that the female is incapable of doing so to a man, we're suppose to do what, just pretend that its possible?

So for your thesis to be seen as reasonable, all that is required is the suspension of reason itself?

Now folks, the same construct that is being applied here by the opposing contributor is the one being used in Ferguson: 'A Cop Killed a Black Kid and that's murder. He wasn't punished so whitey condones murder. KILL WHITEY and we'll do that by BURNING DOWN OUR OWN TOWN!"

It's ludicrous... wholly invalid in its logical construct and unsound in its intellectual integrity.

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

 

[ricechickie]

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

 

[ricechickie]

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

The purpose is not education. The purpose is indoctrination. Specifically to indoctrinate the culture to not buck the racist notion that 'Blacks' are not to be held accountable for their behavior, because they're incapable of being more than drug addled, malcontents who need to be given license to abuse others and any contest of their abuse is a certain sign of Racism.

It's a typical construct of the Ideological Left, which serves solely the purpose of subverting the standards of the culture which sustain its viability.

 

[ricechickie]

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

The purpose is not education. The purpose is indoctrination. Specifically to indoctrinate the culture to not buck the racist notion that 'Blacks' are not to be held accountable for their behavior, because they're incapable of being more than drug addled, malcontents who need to be given license to abuse others and any contest of their abuse is a certain sign of Racism.

It's a typical construct of the Ideological Left, which serves solely the purpose of subverting the standards of the culture which sustain its viability.

Apparently, you learned nothing about being part of a group that is treated differently for no other reason than sharing physical characteristics with some bad people.

I'll have to go back to calling you a potential rapist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

I didn't mind being lumped into a group. Because the lumper was using invalid reasoning, thus I was never any more part of that lump than I was when the lady on the corner said that I was standing on her dog. The absence of the dog, sort of relived me of any actual liability... to it was then as it was here... just an entertaining moment produced by an irrational mind.

 

[ricechickie]

The fact that there are some cases of female-on-male rape disproves that women are incapable. But the FACT is that men commit more rape, vastly more, than women.

Now, normally that doesn't mean much to me. But applying your logic, that I should treat every individual of a group by the collective reputation of that group, I have to conclude that every man is a potential rapist.

Again, this is your logic. You said this is how humans relate to each other, and should.

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

I didn't mind being lumped into a group. Because the lumper was using invalid reasoning, thus I was never any more part of that lump than I was when the lady on the corner said that I was standing on her dog. The absence of the dog, sort of relived me of any actual liability... to it was then as it was here... just an entertaining moment produced by an irrational mind.

As irrational as someone who thinks that the whole American black population is in Ferguson, MO? And that none of them disapprove of riots, looting, and assault?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

The purpose is not education. The purpose is indoctrination. Specifically to indoctrinate the culture to not buck the racist notion that 'Blacks' are not to be held accountable for their behavior, because they're incapable of being more than drug addled, malcontents who need to be given license to abuse others and any contest of their abuse is a certain sign of Racism.

It's a typical construct of the Ideological Left, which serves solely the purpose of subverting the standards of the culture which sustain its viability.

Apparently, you learned nothing about being part of a group that is treated differently for no other reason than sharing physical characteristics with some bad people.

I'll have to go back to calling you a potential rapist.

Well, I'm not much of a joiner... .

 

[ricechickie]

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

The purpose is not education. The purpose is indoctrination. Specifically to indoctrinate the culture to not buck the racist notion that 'Blacks' are not to be held accountable for their behavior, because they're incapable of being more than drug addled, malcontents who need to be given license to abuse others and any contest of their abuse is a certain sign of Racism.

It's a typical construct of the Ideological Left, which serves solely the purpose of subverting the standards of the culture which sustain its viability.

Apparently, you learned nothing about being part of a group that is treated differently for no other reason than sharing physical characteristics with some bad people.

I'll have to go back to calling you a potential rapist.

Well, I'm not much of a joiner... .

Too bad, you're a member.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! Well I thought you'd lost this every way that could be lost... but I see that you had one left up your sleeve.

There are no cases of a female raping a male and I dont' give a damn what you, or some court says... arousal of the male organ provides that the male is "up for it". I.E.: If you want to 'rape' him... go for it. Thus: No rape.

OR, you're speaking of a violent attack, wherein he was sodomized... which requires no organic means, which is just an ass-beating.

So, once again you equate that which is NOT, even potentially ... equitable.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

I didn't mind being lumped into a group. Because the lumper was using invalid reasoning, thus I was never any more part of that lump than I was when the lady on the corner said that I was standing on her dog. The absence of the dog, sort of relived me of any actual liability... to it was then as it was here... just an entertaining moment produced by an irrational mind.

As irrational as someone who thinks that the whole American black population is in Ferguson, MO? And that none of them disapprove of riots, looting, and assault?

ROFLMNAO! Ok... so all we need to do to accept your feelings is pretend that the black culture is not what it is.

Gotcha... (LOL! Nothing particularly irrational about THAT... . )

 

[ricechickie]

Sorry, the courts disagree with you. Females can rape males. Obviously, there's statutory rape, but there's also forcible rape. But even so, the VAST majority of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Anyway, that drifts slightly off the actual topic. The topic is privilege. You have white privilege, and I have female privilege, and in certain settings there is certainly black privilege.

Publius was asking, way back, what's the purpose of educating people about white privilege, and it's for the purpose of understanding that sometimes what you see is filtered through a lens of race, or gender, or age, or any other number of factors. We must train ourselves to see what is actually there, and what we "see" as a result of our prejudices. One is good for our judgment, and the other hampers good judgment.

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

I didn't mind being lumped into a group. Because the lumper was using invalid reasoning, thus I was never any more part of that lump than I was when the lady on the corner said that I was standing on her dog. The absence of the dog, sort of relived me of any actual liability... to it was then as it was here... just an entertaining moment produced by an irrational mind.

As irrational as someone who thinks that the whole American black population is in Ferguson, MO? And that none of them disapprove of riots, looting, and assault?

ROFLMNAO! Ok... so all we need to do to accept your feeling is pretend that the black culture is not what it is.

Gotcha... (LOL! Nothing particularly irrational about THAT... . )

Do you think what you see in Ferguson is all of black culture? That's your evidence of what black people think and condone?

Maybe that's your problem- er, privilege.

 

[ChrisL]

Well as a member of the raper-gender, I have joined with the WHOLE of our society to establish law which holds that where a member of our group forces himself into the body of a member of the rapee-gender, that the offending member be:

1-Charged with the offense
2- Tried on the evidence of that charge (all the while enjoying the benefit of the doubt, wherein they are presumed innocent, until the evidence establishes their guilt: beyond a reasonable doubt)

And where the evidence is so established: We will kill them for it.

And I would submit, that we have a long and distinguished record of doing just that.

So... That's us, protecting you, from us.

But beyond THAT: We buy you people everything your heart desires, set your concerns above our own needs and often turn over half our possessions and most of the product of our labor to you as a penalty for just having known you... and frankly... I don't see how much more we can do for ya.

The truth is that some of the fellas are just unmitigated, belligerent assholes... but that, we feel, sets us in balance given the fact that some of you gals, are vicious *****.

OK, as an analogy, with you being the discriminated gender because of your gender's bad behavior, and me being the privileged gender, due to the relative lack of female rapists, you just said that some females are "vicious *****." You seemed to need to fight back against the presumption that you might be a rapist. I'm guessing you can't really stop other men from raping, but you didn't seem to like the suggestion that, because men rape more often than women, they should be profiled as rapists.

I wonder why black people sometimes react in a hostile manner to the reactions they get every day that they are less than white people because of the behavior of a few bad actors of their race, that they have no control over.

You just got a taste of it. Go back, see how it felt, think it over.

I don't think many people think that way. They see that there are definitely problems in the African American community and would like to see it addressed, and for African Americans to take responsibility for their own behaviors and issues, instead of making white people the scape goat by claiming such things as "white privilege."

I am a white person, but if I don't go to school and resort to a life of crime and I feel sorry for myself, thinking that I am the victim of some made-up boogie white man, then I am more than likely going to be spending a lot of my time in jail and in trouble, maybe even dead too.

There are definite problems in the white community we would like to see fixed before white people attempt to tell African Americans what to do. I would also like to see white people take responsibility for their behavior an issues instead of pretending its due to mental illness.

Only, white people don't normally do that. We are more than willing to punish the bad seeds among us and, in fact, we WANT to get rid of them. We don't make excuses for them either. I don't defend a criminal because of his skin color, and that would never even OCCUR to me.

In the poor black communities where gang violence is rampant, the people are AFRAID to speak out, and because of all the fear-mongering about racism, they are AFRAID to go to the police for help. That is how deep the problem runs.

Yes whites do it all the time. If a Black person does something then its a genetic trait shared by all Blacks. if a white person does something then its because that person is mental.

Drug use, suicide, mass murders, serial killers, school shooters are all rampant among whites. The people try to write this off due to mental issues. Whites are AFRAID to get help. This is how deep the problem is.

That is a retarded post and nothing about it is true. Some crimes certainly ARE due to mental illness, but not all. You are just trolling, as per usual..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well courts are like everything else that so often disagree with me... but they rarely win when it gets down to a contest.

The fact is that male arousal constitutes a green light.

Courts also claim that a man rapes a woman, whenever she says no... despite her behavior having said yes, through coitus, and the no coming in 'hindsight'.

So... that's sorta why appeals to the misleading authority of the judiciary, so often fail.

A woman's body is designed to be entered by a male, a males body is not designed to be entered by anything but FOOD.

So a man cannot be 'raped'. And that doesn't change, because the court says so. As such projects female sexual characteristics upon the male.

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

I didn't mind being lumped into a group. Because the lumper was using invalid reasoning, thus I was never any more part of that lump than I was when the lady on the corner said that I was standing on her dog. The absence of the dog, sort of relived me of any actual liability... to it was then as it was here... just an entertaining moment produced by an irrational mind.

As irrational as someone who thinks that the whole American black population is in Ferguson, MO? And that none of them disapprove of riots, looting, and assault?

ROFLMNAO! Ok... so all we need to do to accept your feeling is pretend that the black culture is not what it is.

Gotcha... (LOL! Nothing particularly irrational about THAT... . )

Do you think what you see in Ferguson is all of black culture? That's your evidence of what black people think and condone?

Maybe that's your problem- er, privilege.

So you want to dismiss the responsibility of the culture for the behavior of the individual?

Go figure... . (Nothing particularly IRRATIONAL about THAT, where the culture otherwise promotes the behavior at issue.)

 

[ricechickie]

We'll have to disagree, but it's beside the point.

The topic is white privilege. You certainly didn't like having a glimpse of life being lumped into a group over which you have little control.

I didn't mind being lumped into a group. Because the lumper was using invalid reasoning, thus I was never any more part of that lump than I was when the lady on the corner said that I was standing on her dog. The absence of the dog, sort of relived me of any actual liability... to it was then as it was here... just an entertaining moment produced by an irrational mind.

As irrational as someone who thinks that the whole American black population is in Ferguson, MO? And that none of them disapprove of riots, looting, and assault?

ROFLMNAO! Ok... so all we need to do to accept your feeling is pretend that the black culture is not what it is.

Gotcha... (LOL! Nothing particularly irrational about THAT... . )

Do you think what you see in Ferguson is all of black culture? That's your evidence of what black people think and condone?

Maybe that's your problem- er, privilege.

So you want to dismiss the responsibility of the culture for the behavior of the individual?

Go figure... . (Nothing particularly IRRATIONAL about THAT?)

Not nearly as irrational as dealing with people solely as members of a group.

I repeat, Ferguson does not have the entire black population within its borders.