Featured Two Cops Shot, Sitting In Car, In Brooklyn

If the fourms are worth their salt he should.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Raw numbers can't be manipulated.











.

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.

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.

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.

 

And especially your comments here.

 

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

 

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

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

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

.

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

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.

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Then refute it. But you can't.

Yeah, it kinda does.


.

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

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

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.

Because raw, uncooked data cannot lie.

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.

 

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.

And your interpretation is absolutely incorrect.

.

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

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

So who gets to decide that they are wrong?

The reality of Blacks says Yes.

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

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.

 

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

Then by all means, prove me 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.

That's why I used all the nation.

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

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

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.

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.

 

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

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

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.

Nope. You used the set that somebody else reported.

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

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.

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

Correct.

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.

 

:thumbsup::applause:...

 

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.

Nope. I meant discriminately.

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

 

:thumbsup: