I Have No White Guilt

[GrassrootsConservative]

Alex Jones is not a member of this board, just like Benjamin Netanyahu is not a member of this board, so if anyone attacks anything they say, it is not breaking the rules of this board. Rose is a very nice and kind lady, and if anyone attacked her personally, I would get stuck into him.

Where did I say they were breaking the rules?

I know you're young, but don't try to infer things from my posts if I don't directly say them.

They've committed what is called a logical fallacy, not breaking the rules, but it certainly won't reflect well on them as a poster.

[whatukno]

Where did I say they were breaking the rules?

I know you're young, but don't try to infer things from my posts if I don't directly say them.

They've committed what is called a logical fallacy, not breaking the rules, but it certainly won't reflect well on them as a poster.

Except I didn't, but you are purposefully not going to understand that, so I think it's best that we drop it now.

[zelmo1234]

Make what up? $#@! man, sorry! Time to move on I think. Yeah, that part of American history sucked, and we shouldn't forget it. But white people of today don't owe black people a $#@! thing except the equal opportunity to allow themselves to be a full and integral part of America.

Yes, white people who can trace their ancestry back to the anti abolitionist movement should be forgiven, the sins of the father should not be passed down to the son.

Now, modern day white supremacists, skinheads, KKK members, TEA Party racists, etc, sure they are $#@!s, and should be treated like the $#@!s they are, you can't change them though, they are going to be $#@!s, and unfortunately for the rest of us, the first amendment gives them the right to be $#@!s, that's why the Westboro Baptist Cult gets to do what it does.

Just got to point and laugh, it's all you can do.

First of all the I have to say that my opinion of Westboro is not much better than yours.

But I want to discuss the TEA Party, I am sure that there are racists in the TEA party. but Race issues are not even on the radar of the TEA party, it is not in there agenda?

So why are you convinced that they are racist. They have tax issues and government over reach issues that drive the movement. There concerns are mainly financial? Where do you see the racism.

[William]

A grandchilds school in Florida, the class is very diverse. White, black, Asian, Middle Eastern, Hispanic and every combination you can imagine. Earlier this year the teacher had one white child, about 8, stand and face an 8 year old black child and apologize for slavery. I'm just grandma, so I had to keep my mouth shut. I was hoping it was just some nutty left wing kook teacher. I dismissed the event. But now this week the topic has surfaced once more, and I felt it was worth stating my position on the issue.

Slavery ended in 1865. My grandchild was born in 2007. No apology needed nor given.

I totally agree with you Redrose, I don't think an apology was needed, and neway, the 8 year old would not understand what that was all about.

But my ancestors (and maybe yours) were part of the biggest empire the world has ever seen, which lasted over 300 years. And in that time, we (the British) stomped about across the globe - bossing mainly brown people around and taking their stuff. I don't think I should personally apologise to any brown kid I meet for that, but I think I should express regret that all that happened. People were bullied and robbed just cos we were more technically advanced, more powerful, and had bigger guns - that's not fair, and I should say so, even if it makes me look bad.

It's a bit like if some kid lost his dad in a road accident. If I say how sorry I am that happened - that doesn't mean I am saying I was personally responsible in any way. But it's like only human to feel sorry for someone who has suffered.

[William]

Where did I say they were breaking the rules?

I know you're young, but don't try to infer things from my posts if I don't directly say them.

They've committed what is called a logical fallacy, not breaking the rules, but it certainly won't reflect well on them as a poster.

LOL, first off - thanks for teaching me something. I had to Google 'logical fallacy' (I'm still not totally sure what it means).

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "breaking the rules", but what I was saying is it's not wrong in a discussion to attack what some person has said - AFIK that's not an ad hominem. It also shouldn't be wrong to say something like "Hitler was a power-mad maniac," as long as Hitler is not a member of this board. So calling Alex Jones a nutter, if there is evidence he is a nutter (which there is), shouldn't be wrong in any way should it?

[GrassrootsConservative]

LOL, first off - thanks for teaching me something. I had to Google 'logical fallacy' (I'm still not totally sure what it means).

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "breaking the rules", but what I was saying is it's not wrong in a discussion to attack what some person has said - AFIK that's not an ad hominem. It also shouldn't be wrong to say something like "Hitler was a power-mad maniac," as long as Hitler is not a member of this board. So calling Alex Jones a nutter, if there is evidence he is a nutter (which there is), shouldn't be wrong in any way should it?

There is no evidence he has syphilis, as some claim, or any of the other nonsense they are claiming.

And you're welcome.

[Peter1469]

I don't think anyone should feel guilt over anything they haven't done, just like I don't think anyone should feel pride over anything they haven't done themselves. We should feel sorry for people who are disadvantaged by our society and try to help them in any way we can - specially by changing society so people are not disadvantaged due to stuff they have no control over. People should learn about history and avoid repeating the bad stuff that happened, but they shouldn't be made to feel bad over stuff they had no control over. That's not fair.

How does a society change to help under performers? Force over achievers to cease attempts at bettering themselves?

[Peter1469]

LOL, first off - thanks for teaching me something. I had to Google 'logical fallacy' (I'm still not totally sure what it means).

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "breaking the rules", but what I was saying is it's not wrong in a discussion to attack what some person has said - AFIK that's not an ad hominem. It also shouldn't be wrong to say something like "Hitler was a power-mad maniac," as long as Hitler is not a member of this board. So calling Alex Jones a nutter, if there is evidence he is a nutter (which there is), shouldn't be wrong in any way should it?

The What kid was attacking Alex Jones (and his views). Attacking the man is a logical fallacy- that doesn't mean that it is true or false (of course his claim was patently ridiculous). It means it isn't logical.

Then when he lumps all of those other groups with the Tea Parties and labels them as racists to boot, I see what the problem is: the ability to use logic.

[William]

The What kid was attacking Alex Jones (and his views). Attacking the man is a logical fallacy- that doesn't mean that it is true or false (of course his claim was patently ridiculous). It means it isn't logical.

Then when he lumps all of those other groups with the Tea Parties and labels them as racists to boot, I see what the problem is: the ability to use logic.

I totally agree that he shouldn't have said stuff like Jones has a sex disease or anything like that - it's not fair cos Jones can't answer on this board. IMO, that was wrong, but when I Googled Alex Jones, and saw some of his videos, I think what he says is total cobblers. He is also a rude, shouty man, who shows no respect for others.

I wasn't defending Whatukno, I was just saying that we should be allowed to criticise public figures for what they say and do.

If you like and agree with what Jones says, then you can defend it logically - I don't, and I can give my reasons for that.

[Peter1469]

I don't listen to the guy.