Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

I disagree with that and stand by my opinion that she should have mentioned prejudice against whites.

She doesn't need to simply things to the point they're wrong in order to get the point across.

Tell me how leaving out 'sometimes whites are treated bad too' somehow negates racism is a thing.

This post has been edited by Bourbon: 03 February 2012 - 12:16 AM

It doesn't. It is just unspecific.

Vague isn't wrong though, in fact it's vague enough that the lesson could apply to any kind of segregation. "Do not ignore differences, embrace them". None of this leaves white people out somehow.

So she includes: racism from white people, then sexism and ageism in general.

You say that like including even a sentence about how white people can be targeted would have just thrown everyone into a mass of confusion.

Judging by what happened in Britain, yes. She's not one to take the risk that she might derail her entire goal.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 03 February 2012 - 12:52 AM

Besides, she's using past events and history, NOT speculation and hypothetical ideas. She used an example of a gay white kid being beaten to death. It'd be much harder for her to find some instance of a white person being tortured to death by a group of black people. She's not ignoring white people or calling them the only racists, she's saying 'these very racist and hateful things happened, and people act like today it's completely gone. It's very much not, understand it's not over'.

Bourbon, on 03 February 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

I guess I was mistaken then. Any prejudice against white people must have just been speculation or hypothetical.

Look, you're putting too much weight into her saying one sentence. All I said is that she was being vague because she left it out. That is irrelevant in terms of her job, and has nothing to do with how hard it is to find a story - one that isn't even necessary. .

I don't understand what you're bothered by then. You're saying she's making it out like white people are the only racist ones. She's saying it's easier to be white, and when someone was upset by her (race of the person is unimportant) she said 'well this person was murdered this way, this person was beaten to death this way, I don't pity you here for being treated badly for a few hours'. You're completely missing the point by saying she was somehow unfairly treating white people by bringing up racist things that white people did (and again, one of her big examples was the gay white kid who was beaten to death, so there is mention of a white person being victimized). Its what happened, she can't magically make the past equal when it wasn't.

Look, I'm disagreeing with you and ending it here. I'm done with this fucking circular bullshit. Get back to me when you have something new to say.

Alright man, no need to get all bent out of shape about it.

You suck at Geometry.

You suck at speech fundamentals.

I'm sorry. I'm a bit unconventional. I don't like circular logic.

Who used circular logic? You were complaining before about a circular argument before, that's not the same thing.

Now you suck at debate too

Bourbon, on 03 February 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Oh God, is this even English? It took me a minute.

Yeah, let me guess, we're gonna argue about how I think they are virtually the same thing and you have this completely different opinion of what they are, and then after multiple posts, you're finally gonna tell me that you had a completely separate definition for one of them the whole time, despite easily being able to see what I meant by it.

Round 2.

Dude, I went off to do other stuff, so I'm late to the dumb argument that won't even be an argument because here it comes:

Circular logic: a statement where proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

"BCB readers are all virgin losers because they're all on BCB instead of getting laid."

Circular argument (the vocab is lacking here I admit): A debate consisting of two unwavering opinions, the desire to make one see his way, and a lot of hot air.

"I think A"

"That's preposterous, it's B"

"But you're not thinking about A"

"I shouldn't have to, what about B?"

"I think you should really look at A one more time..."



Yay, no reason to fight.

When someone is picking at semantics, you know they are just trying to rile shit up and be an idiot.