Actually, I felt you were just being your usual evasive self.Quote:
Well, you sure missed my point on that one! Gee whiz!
|
Actually, I felt you were just being your usual evasive self.Quote:
Well, you sure missed my point on that one! Gee whiz!
Yep. That's the objective.Quote:
t it is a Dem strategy that racist whites (ie Republicans ) oppose .
Nope, you did not understand me correctly. *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Groups should not be necessary for political leverage.
If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us.
For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.
I did express it coherently. Wasn't that good enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us. This is how it's done.
Quote:
For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.
I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.
So do you think groups like BLM and others who advance political agendas and advocate for political candidates are, in your view, wrong?Quote:
I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.
I don't understand how you can say we are, "together, working together to achieve the same goals." Perhaps that is what we SHOULD be, but not sure why you think that is what we are.
I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.
Yes, but I'm asking you for a practical application. Groups like BLM, or pro-life/pro-abortion groups, or gay groups are wrong in your view? They are certainly all pursuing political agendas, aren't they? Should they exist, or would you say they are as wrong as a white nationalist group?
I'm just digging a little in order to understand your reasoning.
Such a literalist you are!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary. Why can't we all get along, and constructively discuss our various needs and wants, come to a mutual understanding, and then an agreement or at least a compromise?
First you say, "I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda." Then you say, "No they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary," which means that, in your view, they are necessary. So you are advancing two competing views. Groups that should not exist are allowed to exist since they are "necessary". But if that is true, then white groups must also be allowed to exist since, in reality, they are advancing political agendas just as the other groups you give passes to.
What compromise would you be wiling to accept in the abortion debate?
Your reading comprehension needs help.
***"I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda." Then you say, "No they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary," which means that, in your view, they are necessary.***
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS!!!!! I'M NOT "ADVANCING TWO COMPETING VIEWS"!!!
In post 49 you said, "It isn't unusual but it's wrong." But just above you said, "No, they aren't wrong;" And in post 51 you said, "Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are..." So you are very clearly saying they ARE necessary. That's the funny thing about words. They can be referenced by others at a later time.
I don't think the problem is my reading comp. Perhaps the problem is your writing comp. Perhaps you are attempting to say many things and yet say nothing, and thus elude being held accountable for you beliefs? In this case, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote earlier. Too bad.
It would be helpful for you to make a cogent statement of what you believe about this, a statement you are willing to stand on. So far that has not happened. I still think it would look something like this.
Quote:
For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.
yawn !
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM. |