If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

No, it makes no 'sense.' If Race X person kills Race Y person because of their race, then maybe you would have a point. Maybe. It would be debatable.

But when a half Race X person kills Race Y person because Race Y person is attacking him, with absolutely no racial component to the killing at all. Then no, your answer does not fly. And Emmett Till comparisons are wrong in every way.

The true explanation for this kind of thing is that there are despicable people who prefer to stir up racial animosity for political purposes (and in the case of some of the worst hucksters, for personal/professional as well as political reasons).

---

You got bogged down by trying to make this specifically relate to the case of Trayvon Martin. Even if you go the route of wondering how a man who is half-Race X/half-Race Z (Zimmerman's half-white, half-Hispanic), we both just agreed there may be "a point" to wondering about historicity/context when a member of Race X (which historically oppressed Race Y) kills a member of Race Y.

All your other references to Till and racial hucksters were not part of my original argument. And it's distracting for you to bring them up because I actually do agree with you that there are important differences between the Martin and Till cases and that far too often the media makes an event about race, which is a low-hanging fruit that sells papers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

You got bogged down by trying to make this specifically relate to the case of Trayvon Martin. Even if you go the route of wondering how a man who is half-Race X/half-Race Z (Zimmerman's half-white, half-Hispanic), we both just agreed there may be "a point" to wondering about historicity/context when a member of Race X (which historically oppressed Race Y) kills a member of Race Y.

All your other references to Till and racial hucksters were not part of my original argument. And it's distracting for you to bring them up because I actually do agree with you that there are important differences between the Martin and Till cases and that far too often the media makes an event about race, which is a low-hanging fruit that sells papers.

---

I didn't get bogged down at all. You just missed the point. You chimed in with the completely unsupported claim the thread was petty. Then proceeded to say that the hypocrisy being pointed to makes sense due to history. When I responded, you then mistakenly concluded we agreed on something. But you missed the crucial qualifier in my statement "because of race." We do not possibly agree unless that phrase is true, and in 2013 it is almost never true. Not with Martin, or 99% of the other cases onto which the hucksters and their enabling media alight.

Your point is only possibly meaningful to the extent Race X kills Race Y because of Race Y's race. Period. And when I said "maybe," it is because that if it becomes apparent that Race Y is now killing Race X because of race far more than the reverse, then the past history becomes less relevant/important than the current problem (because we don't have time machines).

And in terms of this thread and its "pettiness" you also missed the point. Which is that when the hucksters go unchallenged (i.e. when people blithely say "what do you expect considering past history?") and continue to inflame useful idiots with their hypocritical fabricated screeds concerning race and racism, they create murders like the Lane murder.

These thugs were running around knocking out and eventually killing white people because they falsely believed there was some kind of racial injustice done to Trayvon Martin. Lane was killed because of his race. The thugs were racists, and they were created and nurtured by the hucksters, the enablers, and the apologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

You chimed in with the completely unsupported claim the thread was petty.

---

Because it is petty.

As HoustonRaven all but acknowledged it could be reasonably perceived when it he prefaced his original post by saying he's not one for "tit-for-tat racial scorecards."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Then proceeded to say that the hypocrisy being pointed to makes sense due to history.

---

When did I say that the practice is not hypocritical? Cool it with your straw man.

In my very first post in this (petty) thread I said the practice is not fair. I do, however, see how it makes sense, and I will continue to say this. Anyone with a mind for understanding history and practices of oppression and discrimination will understand that it does.

And before you "chime in" with an inane point along these lines: Yes, it can make sense for hypocritical things to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Because it is petty.

---

It is only petty to people who miss the point. But I repeat myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

As HoustonRaven all but acknowledged it could be reasonably perceived when it he prefaced his original post by saying he's not one for "tit-for-tat racial scorecards."

---

This isn't a tit-for-tat racial scorecard. This is a near perfect encapsulation of the problem at hand, due to the temporal proximity of the cases, the diametrically opposed facts and reactions, and utterly undeniable hypocrisy. Scorecards are subjective and debatable, this issue (these cases) is not. The fact that the Lane murder was effectively spurred into being by the hypocritical hucksters makes the issue that much more important (i.e. the hypocrisy is not harmless).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

When did I say that the practice is not hypocritical? Cool it with your straw man.

---

You are excusing the hypocrisy by saying it is a sensible position. Please make an attempt to follow the arguments before telling me to cool it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

In my very first post in this (petty) thread I said the practice is not fair. I do, however, see how it makes sense, and I will continue to say this. Anyone with a mind for understanding history and practices of oppression and discrimination will understand that it does.

---

Repeating your already addressed arguments instead of making counter-arguments is a waste of time. Suffice it to say it doesn't make 'sense' in any real use of the word. And as such it should be called out (for not making sense), so it is stopped before more harm is done. Apologizing for it (by saying it is sensible) and excusing it (for being sensible) is precisely the wrong response if one is interested in peaceful race relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

And before you "chime in" with an inane point along these lines: Yes, it can make sense for hypocritical things to happen.

---

Telling me it makes sense that humans are often hypocrites (in attempts to advance their own cause) is totally different from your original post where you argued the sensibility of the hypocritical position itself. I realize why you tried to move the goalposts, there was nothing left for you to do apparently, but I am not sure why you believed I wouldn't notice.

Simply put, had you said "it makes sense considering the people doing this have an agenda separate from relating the truth," then we aren't arguing. Because that "makes sense."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Your rant was too ranty for me to actually know what you were talking about here.

I don't even know what "case" you're referring to.

---

He is ranting about the "race" industry.

People like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and even those in political offices have used and continue to use race as a backbone for political and monetary gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Your rant was too ranty for me to actually know what you were talking about here.

I don't even know what "case" you're referring to.

---

The Martin/Zimmerman case, and I think that was clear. And it was what the opening post and thread are about in comparison to the latest rash of senseless killings that the POTUS has decided do not merit his attention.

And this isn't about some scorecard, it is about hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

It is only petty to people who miss the point. But I repeat myself.



This isn't a tit-for-tat racial scorecard. This is a near perfect encapsulation of the problem at hand, due to the temporal proximity of the cases, the diametrically opposed facts and reactions, and utterly undeniable hypocrisy. Scorecards are subjective and debatable, this issue (these cases) is not. The fact that the Lane murder was effectively spurred into being by the hypocritical hucksters makes the issue that much more important (i.e. the hypocrisy is not harmless).



You are excusing the hypocrisy by saying it is a sensible position. Please make an attempt to follow the arguments before telling me to cool it.



Repeating your already addressed arguments instead of making counter-arguments is a waste of time. Suffice it to say it doesn't make 'sense' in any real use of the word. And as such it should be called out (for not making sense), so it is stopped before more harm is done. Apologizing for it (by saying it is sensible) and excusing it (for being sensible) is precisely the wrong response if one is interested in peaceful race relations.



Telling me it makes sense that humans are often hypocrites (in attempts to advance their own cause) is totally different from your original post where you argued the sensibility of the hypocritical position itself. I realize why you tried to move the goalposts, there was nothing left for you to do apparently, but I am not sure why you believed I wouldn't notice.

Simply put, had you said "it makes sense considering the people doing this have an agenda separate from relating the truth," then we aren't arguing. Because that "makes sense."

---

Months late, but finally reading.

:rolling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Months late, but finally reading.

:rolling:

---

Sooooo, months later, you're saying you have no cogent, reasoned rebuttal to him.

Got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Sooooo, months later, you're saying you have no cogent, reasoned rebuttal to him.

Got it.

---

No.

Months later, I'm saying his points are not worth responding to, because they are pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

No.

Months later, I'm saying his points are not worth responding to, because they are pathetic.

---

Ad hominem attacks mean his points are valid and you've got nothing left in the tank.

Got that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Ad hominem attacks mean his points are valid and you've got nothing left in the tank.

Got that too.

---

You might want to learn what the phrase "ad hominem" means before you try to use it.

It means to attack the individual.

I did not attack the individual. I attacked what he said. What he said was pathetic.

I have plenty "left in the tank." Because I am not the least bit impressed by what Haloti92 said and am not the least bit fazed by your terse snark.

If I felt like it, I'd dissect the nonsense Haloti92 spewed point by point. However, I'm not so inclined, because frankly I doubt his ability (and now yours) to be intellectually honest.

Hope ya "got that too."

LOL

The wait-6-weeks-and-come-back-with-"derrp, pathetic, derrp" strategy.

Well played!