Nom banned me for disagreeing re the def of race discrimination.
2
points
1
point
0
points
Agreedd. Nom lied and publicly called me a rapist several times So let's just examine that claim, Dana. You "agree" that:- Nom banned me for disagreeing re the def of race discrimination Which of course isn't true. But you "agree" with it, because:- Nom lied and publicly called me a rapist several times So you agree with Joe's lie because of something which is also only half-true and completely unrelated? 😆 As you well know Dana, you spent several weeks here last year accusing various site members of having raped you. Hence, when you refer to parodies of yourself without even having the honesty to let people know they are parodies, you can't really expect to establish a reputation for sincerity. In fact, I'm just going to call you what you are Dana, which is a lying wingnut far right bitch. 1
point
1
point
1
point
Yeah, he insists that the secondary and more recent definition of racism is the only definition of racism. He further asserts that this secondary definition necessarily only precludes one race. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/racism 2
points
Lol!!! The way you distort and abuse language really is quite fun to behold buddy. 😆 What exactly is a "secondary" definition? There is only one definition of racism and that is the current definition. You don't get to ignore the present definition and use an archaic one simply because you don't like the change. You stupid, arrogant fool. The secondary definition is the second definition in all of the sources referenced. You conflate institutional racism with individual racism and then conclude that individuals cannot be racist against white individuals because of the supposed white domination of all institutions. It's exceedingly dishonest and implies, ironically, that white people can do something that black people cannot. The secondary definition is the second definition in all of the sources referenced. I suggest you shut your fat stupid mouth and listen to someone who knows slightly more than you do. The numbers adjacent to the definitions in a dictionary have got nothing to do with primary or "secondary" definitions. They are called homonyms and merely reflect the various contexts a particular word can be used in. You're a fucking idiot Amarel. Shut your mouth. 1
point
0
points
Yeah, he insists that the secondary and more recent definition of racism is the only definition of racism. Being someone lacking the basic intelligence necessary to differentiate population figures from fatal stabbing statistics, one might be tempted to think you would be slow to open your mouth, but of course what we usually find in reality is that the opposite holds true. Those who are most stupid usually have the biggest mouths, and they desperately try to cover the lost ground by force, or fallacy. In this case, as we can see there is no charge to answer because your accusation is a rather textbook straw man fallacy. That is, rather than ask me for my argument or belief, you instead have decided to tell me my argument or belief, so that you can then "rebut" it with some pre-prepared evidence. How about this Amarel. Why don't you quote for us all the exact passage which reads: "I think the secondary and most recent definition of racism is the only definition of racism." You are of course going to have a very difficult time finding that quote, since it was never said, written or suggested. Yet, I apparently said this not merely once. No, I insisted it, which of course implies I said this same thing repeatedly. But Amarel is never going to find that quote, because of course Amarel is a liar. There are many clues outside of him just making up false accusations though. He is also misrepresenting an article talking about an "updated" definition. Note the way he has changed the word "updated" to secondary". He does this very frequently you will discover. If his argument doesn't the facts he will gleefully rewrite those facts into language which is more palatable for him. 2
points
rather than ask me for my argument or belief, I did ask. See my questions below. And I got banned for it ;) What "existing advantage" are you removing from white people? Are you keeping white people from better schools during grades 1-12? Are you screwing up their transcripts so they don't seem so smart? Are you killing their brain cells so they aren't as smart? Are you giving their seat at college to a less qualified minority? What exactly is this "existing advantage" that you are removing? 1
point
Now you’ve got your cowardly butt banned ( again) seeing as that’s what you do every time you’re asked to account for your totally irrational rants ...... You stated on your “debate” that you have banned everyone on site from ...... Make a note to yourself. Calling me a "cowardly fuck" is not disagreeing with me. Make a note to yourself calling you a cowardly fuck is based upon observations of your childish behavior based on your on irrational rants on DI , tricky stuff but there you go You are confusing (almost certainly deliberately confusing) two completely different concepts. No confusion here but I’ve just corrected yours You are welcome to come back in and participate if you ever learn the difference between disagreeing with and demeaning someone else. Statements of fact are not to “demean” you they are intended to correct you and be instructional in nature ........ So apart from your constant bitching and whining have you got a valid defence for you rabid racism or would you prefer to just keep bitching and whining about your hurt feelings? |