Two Cops Shot, Sitting In Car, In Brooklyn

[Jedi Knight]

He is advocating it. He is advocating all the hate filled extremist reactions fro the far left because he is a hate filled extremists in the vein of Malcom X and the BLM. And yes he should be banned.

If the fourms are worth their salt he should.

 

[Zaac]

He is advocating it. He is advocating all the hate filled extremist reactions fro the far left because he is a hate filled extremists in the vein of Malcom X and the BLM. And yes he should be banned.

Then yall are advocating the hate filled extremist attitudes of the far right because you're hate filled extremists in the vein of The KKK and David Dukes.

So if you're gonna ban someone, start with yourselves.

 

[Zaac]

If the fourms are worth their salt he should.

It's a Baptist Board. The SBC is calling for repentance and most of ya are at ods with that. Maybe yall are the ones who should just leave?

 

[Sapper Woody]

Man please. ANd you can gather the Amen corner to agree with you, but numbers can be produced to counter what you think is the truth. So like I said, your version of the truth isn't anymore the absolute truth than is the majority of white people thinking that black people have access to the same job opportunities. The truth of Blacks is different as far as they are concerned.





So you gave A truth. That doesn't mean it is THE truth.





That white privilege blind spot seems to keep growing.

Raw numbers can't be manipulated.











.

Are whites killed at the exact same rate that they are committing crimes?

Yes. Which is why your lie is, in fact, a lie. Whites are killed at a slightly (less than 1%) rate than blacks when compared to crime rate. So, it is irrefutable that they are killed at the exact same rate.

There are apparently versions of the truth since you think your version is the truth and blacks think their version which counters yours is also the truth.





Now prove yours is the absolute truth and theirs is not. And you can save the easily manipulated numbers.

Again, raw data can't be manipulated. There is only truth. There is not a version of truth. To say otherwise is to go contrary to the very reason we chose to be Baptist. If everyone's version of truth is right, then it's arbitrary.

Yep, there's that white privilege again trying to devalue, mitigate, and marginalize anyone and anything that would dare challenge it.





You can save that sort of foolishness with me.





If I've got an agenda, then white privilege has an agenda too.

I have asked you to quit using that phrase. It is no better than calling a black person the "N" word. And before you try and say it isn't, it is. It is a negative classification of an entire group of people without distinction based on the color of their skin.

 

[Don]

That applies to Blacks and Whites.

And especially your comments here.

 

[plain_n_simple]

We should pray for all who God put in authority, regardless.

 

[Zaac]

Raw numbers can't be manipulated.

A lot of folks with degrees in mathematics would say otherwise.

Yes. Which is why your lie is, in fact, a lie. Whites are killed at a slightly (less than 1%) rate than blacks when compared to crime rate. So, it is irrefutable that they are killed at the exact same rate.

Says what data? I would venture that you don't know what you're talking about because I guarantee it can be refuted.

Again, raw data can't be manipulated. There is only truth.

Pure foolishness. Just because you've got raw numbers doesn't mean it's the absolute truth.

There is not a version of truth

.

There is. There's yours and there's theirs.

To say otherwise is to go contrary to the very reason we chose to be Baptist.

I could care less about why you chose to be a Baptist. we're not talking about Baptist doctrine. We're talking about numbers so you can save trying to confuse the issue with me.

If everyone's version of truth is right, then it's arbitrary.

I understand truth just fine when we're talking about God's truth. But we're talking about your truth about some numbers and somebody else's truth on some other numbers.

So your number truth is the absolute truth exactly why?

I have asked you to quit using that phrase. It is no better than calling a black person the "N" word.

I've asked people to stop referring to Blacks as thugs and animals. That persists.

And before you try and say it isn't, it is. It is a negative classification of an entire group of people without distinction based on the color of their skin.

It's a classification of a pervading ideology. It's not about a person as the use of the N word generally is. SO again, you don't get to dictate or frame the conversation. If I see evidence of racial prejudice, white privilege or racism, I'm gonna point it out.

And social conditioning and white privilege continues to blind a lot of people to anybody's truth but their own. Which is precisely why white privilege complains when its authority is challenged.

 

[Zaac]

And especially your comments here.

And I say especially to the other comments. So we're in the same place.

 

[matt wade]

I find it interesting that rather than engage in debate with someone (the purpose of this forum), you guys call for someone to be banned. While I don't agree with everything Zaac posts, he's not posting anything heretical or against God's Word. The only reason you guys want him banned is because he offers an opinion that differs from yours.

If all you want to do is hear your opinion regurgitated back at you, go turn on the radio and listen to Hannity and Beck. If you decide, instead, that you can actually debate, as is intended on this forum, come on back and man it up.

 

[Zaac]

I find it interesting that rather than engage in debate with someone (the purpose of this forum), you guys call for someone to be banned. While I don't agree with everything Zaac posts, he's not posting anything heretical or against God's Word. The only reason you guys want him banned is because he offers an opinion that differs from yours.

If all you want to do is hear your opinion regurgitated back at you, go turn on the radio and listen to Hannity and Beck. If you decide, instead, that you can actually debate, as is intended on this forum, come on back and man it up.

And you've summed it up.

This is precisely the way that Blacks view their treatment by a lot of Whites. The majority refuses to have its authority challenged by the minority.

If Blacks during slavery challenged the slave master, they were killed.
If Blacks speak out against racial prejudice and what they see to be as a systemic pattern of behavior from a lot of the majority, the majority tries to shut them up. The murders of MLKJr, Malcolm X, Emmit Till and so many others who spoke against the wrongs by the majority.

And now the majority has developed a blind spot to not want to accept the treatment that some Blacks say they are the recipients.

But like this board, truth, justice and the American way has to be colored(no pun intended) in their favor or they ban together to make sure that opposing voices cannot be heard.

Hilarious how history repeats itself. But nobody wants to repent and apologize.

 

[Revmitchell]

Whatever little bit of actual sympathy racebaitor sharpton and his ilks have been able to raise from the American people will get wiped away with this terrorism. That is this is this killing of these cops, it is pure terrorism. The best it could ever accomplish is a civil war.

 

[Sapper Woody]

A lot of folks with degrees in mathematics would say otherwise.

Ask them. Bet you're wrong. Statistics can be cooked, and have different meanings based on the set and subsets, and variations, and data pulled from. Raw numbers, however, can't be. For example, I used data from across the nation. It may be that in isolated areas, what you're saying may be happening. But not enough to skew the national data. If it were prevalent, as you are claiming, the national data would be different. And even if it IS happening in isolated areas, then that means it is happening the opposite elsewhere, balancing it out. However you interpret the data, it is absolutely NOT the targeting of blacks.











[/QUOTE]Says what data? I would venture that you don't know what you're talking about [/QUOTE] My time in in military intel would say otherwise.

because I guarantee it can be refuted.

Then refute it. But you can't.

Pure foolishness. Just because you've got raw numbers doesn't mean it's the absolute truth.

Yeah, it kinda does.


.

There is. There's yours and there's theirs.

And both can't be right in a yes/no scenario.

I could care less about why you chose to be a Baptist. we're not talking about Baptist doctrine. We're talking about numbers so you can save trying to confuse the issue with me.

OK. I'll give you that. I was merely pointing out that in ayes/no case, differing opinions can't be right.

I understand truth just fine when we're talking about God's truth. But we're talking about your truth about some numbers and somebody else's truth on some other numbers.

No, it's about is there, or is there not a systematic killing of blacks. Yes and no can't both be right. Numbers say no.

So your number truth is the absolute truth exactly why?

Because raw, uncooked data cannot lie.

I've asked people to stop referring to Blacks as thugs and animals. That persists.

So, your philosophy is two wrongs make a right? Perhaps, "they started it"?





THE REST OF THE POST IS INVISIBLE ON MY PHONE. I KNOW THERE'S MORE, BUT I CAN'T. SEE IT.

It's a classification of a pervading ideology. It's not about a person as the use of the N word generally is. SO again, you don't get to dictate or frame the conversation. If I see evidence of racial prejudice, white privilege or racism, I'm gonna point it out.





And social conditioning and white privilege continues to blind a lot of people to anybody's truth but their own. Which is precisely why white privilege complains when its authority is challenged.

 

[Zaac]

Ask them. Bet you're wrong. Statistics can be cooked, and have different meanings based on the set and subsets, and variations, and data pulled from. Raw numbers, however, can't be.

Man we've already had this discussion. You simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to statistics and raw data.

It may be that in isolated areas, what you're saying may be happening. But not enough to skew the national data. If it were prevalent, as you are claiming, the national data would be different. And even if it IS happening in isolated areas, then that means it is happening the opposite elsewhere, balancing it out. However you interpret the data, it is absolutely NOT the targeting of blacks.

And your interpretation is absolutely incorrect.

My time in in military intel would say otherwise. Then refute it. But you can't

.

And my time in advanced mathematics and statistical methods would say otherwise. Data, raw or otherwise is easily manipulated.

Yeah, it kinda does.

No it kinda doesn't unless you've got the full set of ALL.

And both can't be right in a yes/no scenario.

So who gets to decide that they are wrong?

No, it's about is there, or is there not a systematic killing of blacks. Yes and no can't both be right. Numbers say no.

The reality of Blacks says Yes.

Because raw, uncooked data cannot lie.

Sure it can. I can gather raw uncooked data for you and skew it any way I choose.

So, your philosophy is two wrongs make a right? Perhaps, "they started it"?

My philosophy is that you're talking about a pejorative to describe what they think of Blacks. I'm talking about an ideology that some whites have adopted.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Man we've already had this discussion. You simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to statistics and raw data.

This coming from the guy who said a basketball player has a 50/50 chance of making a free throw, regardless.

And your interpretation is absolutely incorrect.

Then by all means, prove me wrong.

And my time in advanced mathematics and statistical methods would say otherwise. Data, raw or otherwise is easily manipulated.

See my above comment. You've proven you don't understand statistics and probability. Once you've manipulated it, it's no longer raw.

No it kinda doesn't unless you've got the full set of ALL.

That's why I used all the nation.

So who gets to decide that they are wrong?

Well, when what they say is unprovable, and the numbers say otherwise, I do.

The reality of Blacks says Yes.

Wrong. They're PERCEIVED reality says yes. Actual reality says no.

Sure it can. I can gather raw uncooked data for you and skew it any way I choose.

Then it's not raw and uncooked anymore. It's that simple. Raw data doesn't lie. Once you alter it, it isn't raw anymore.

My philosophy is that you're talking about a pejorative to describe what they think of Blacks. I'm talking about an ideology that some whites have adopted.

And not all blacks are illiterate thugs, right? So, using the "N" word is ok, because I know that not all blacks are like that? Only SOME are. So anytime I want to use that word to describe a pervading black philosophy, you're going to back me up? I think not.

 

[Zaac]

This coming from the guy who said a basketball player has a 50/50 chance of making a free throw, regardless.

See you again shouldn't go there because you're showing what you don't know about statistics and chance right now.

Then by all means, prove me wrong.

No need to. The system testifies everyday that you're wrong.

See my above comment. You've proven you don't understand statistics and probability. Once you've manipulated it, it's no longer raw.

You're proving again that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to statistics or raw data. The 50/50 display proves that.

That's why I used all the nation.

Nope. You used the set that somebody else reported.

Well, when what they say is unprovable, and the numbers say otherwise, I do.

It may be unprovable to your satisfaction. But it isn't to their reality.

Wrong. They're PERCEIVED reality says yes. Actual reality says no.

Your perceived reality says no. Their actual reality says yes. So again, we're right back to where we started and a majority that doesn't listen to what they are saying.

Then it's not raw and uncooked anymore. It's that simple. Raw data doesn't lie. Once you alter it, it isn't raw anymore.

It'll lie if I gather it in a way to make it say what I want it to say.

And not all blacks are illiterate thugs, right?

Correct.

So, using the "N" word is ok, because I know that not all blacks are like that?

As much so as calling them animals and thugs.

Only SOME are. So anytime I want to use that word to describe a pervading black philosophy, you're going to back me up? I think not.

Why would you use the word to describe anything. It's a noun. You know , person, place or thing?

So why would I back you up in the improper use of a word? So you're right to think not.

 

[annsni]

You can easily compare the two. Blacks think that cops are discriminantlu killing unarmed black men. This guy discriminantly decided to kill two cops. There's your comparison and there was no delusion involved.

The man in Ferguson not only faced his killer, he tried to attack him. The man in NY not only faced the cop, he resisted arrest. The two cops sitting in their car never even saw their murderer. BIG difference.

Blacks THINK that cops are discriminantly killing unarmed black men? Yes, that is right. I think you mean INdiscriminently killing unarmed black men which is not, in fact the truth.

But as I've said before, all this highlights is what black people have said. Certain white people don't give a flying hoot that black lives are being taken. But you start shooting white people and those who they believe represent their authority, then everybody will be up in arms.

If a white cop walked up behind a black man and executed him for no reason, he absolutely would have the book thrown at him and that would be right. But that is not what these police officers have done no matter what people decide to make up in their head.

 

[Sapper Woody]

.
As much so as calling them animals and thugs.

Why would you use the word to describe anything. It's a noun. You know , person, place or thing?

So why would I back you up in the improper use of a word? So you're right to think not.

I'm going to deviate from the main argument to address this point here. I do not use the terms I am about to use in my normal vocabulary, and they are not intended to be offensive, but educational.



In today's usage, the word nigger is used as a noun. As we all know, it comes from the Spanish/Portuguese adjective negro, meaning black.



Amother variation is niggardly, meaning stingy or poor.



The word nigger derives in part from old mountain man spelling niggur, meaning black.



My point is, i am not going to go around calling people or things nigger, or niggardly, because it is offensive.



The use of white privilege is equally offensive. It is a term to describe a white person with a supremist attitude, consciously or not. A feeling of entitlement, or supremacy.



It, like nigger, is based on skin color and attitude. Using the sentence "those niggars" is akin to using "white privilege" in a sentence. It is broadbrushing an entire skin color unjustly, but more than that, is highly offensive.



I ask again that those who are using it to stop its usage.

 

[ShagNappy]

IIt, like nigger, is based on skin color and attitude. Using the sentence "those niggars" is akin to using "white privilege" in a sentence. It is broadbrushing an entire skin color unjustly, but more than that, is highly offensive.



I ask again that those who are using it to stop its usage.

:thumbsup::applause:...

 

[Zaac]

The man in Ferguson not only faced his killer, he tried to attack him. The man in NY not only faced the cop, he resisted arrest. The two cops sitting in their car never even saw their murderer. BIG difference.

I didn't say there weren't differences. You don't get to decide what people can /cannot compare. You don't see a comparison. I do.

Blacks THINK that cops are discriminantly killing unarmed black men? Yes, that is right. I think you mean INdiscriminently killing unarmed black men which is not, in fact the truth.

Nope. I meant discriminately.

If a white cop walked up behind a black man and executed him for no reason, he absolutely would have the book thrown at him and that would be right. But that is not what these police officers have done no matter what people decide to make up in their head.

If you say so. A lot of black people and white people obviously disagree with you.

 

[Rolfe]

The use of white privilege is equally offensive. It is a term to describe a white person with a supremist attitude, consciously or not. A feeling of entitlement, or supremacy.



It, like nigger, is based on skin color and attitude. Using the sentence "those niggars" is akin to using "white privilege" in a sentence. It is broadbrushing an entire skin color unjustly, but more than that, is highly offensive.



I ask again that those who are using it to stop its usage.

:thumbsup::applause:...

:thumbsup: