No, no, no. You are presuming I am bad at reading comprehension. To presume means to take for granted without evidence. That is what you are doing because you do not understand what I am saying. How do you know that when you haven't seen your own "horrible" arguments? ;)

Whoa, calm down. You need to be able to see this: I did not agree with the racist notion, so I argued with your example of racist notions. You said the fried chicken example supported Troy's statement, when really it isn't. Like I have said (for the fifth time), if you say a black person likes eating fried chicken, it is a racist notion and is always racist. It does not matter if it might come true, because you cannot just presume that ("taking something without evidence" if you did not know already :|). For your lack of patience and literary knowledge, this means simply that there is no such thing as "a racist notion that sometimes come true." It is always racist to begin with and will offend the person no matter if it (is) actually true.

Yes, I have gotten you to understand. Now, can you understand (this) argument? ;)

Hmm, I think I see what you are saying. But...if you read what I said before, it will be taken offensively. It will be revealed that it is true AFTER you ask them if they like fried chicken or whatever. Do you see what I am saying? I don't want to confuse you.

;) Uhm, what you did actually occurred. You gave an example of Troy's statement, when really, it isn't. Asking a black guy if they would like to eat fried chicken for lunch? That is just a racist notion no matter what. If it's true, great, it's still racist. The person took it offensively because: a) they know it is a notorious racist notion b) they were surprised that you actually tried asking c) they are offended because you tried finding a loophole in which racist notions could be avoided.

I apologize. I meant for the second quote: "I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is NOT a racist notion." So, are you still angry? I added one word, and we're fine. Now, what? ;) Find more!

Alright, please please calm down. You are now replacing your caps with name-calling terms. Do not just presume I am dumb ("to take for granted without evidence"). You are saying this so openly to the fact that I could easily call (you) dumb. Then you would be giving (me) this statement. ;)

No, no, no. Don't contradict yourself. You told me you agreed with me before and I saw it. The quote, "Now, you have never agreed with what I said" is really incomplete: "Now, you have never agreed with what I said if you can't seem to support what I am saying. That is not insanity; it is logic. If you support what I say and agree with me, try SIMPLY agreeing with me. You are always saying now that you think Troy's statement is completely useless, and are saying that you agree with me EVEN though I specifically told you that I don't agree with you nor Troy."

Logically, we should be in agreement. But you didn't say it when I argued against you. In fact, you didn't say it until I brought it up.

What does this mean, then, if you supposedly never claimed that I contradicted myself? "You have now contradicted yourself twice on this topic. You have said that it isn't, is, and isn't again."

"What gave it away that I didn't know what you were saying? Was it the part where I said I didn't know what you were saying?" Uhm, yes. Are you okay?

"You are the only one who brings up this topic." This is a topic based on racism. Racism has its aspects. Why not address those parts to determine whether or not it is wrong?

You cannot just presume I am bad at reading comprehension. When a person is arguing with you, their own words are their arguments. Therefore, since your words are in response to mine, those are your arguments. I have been reading them. I do not agree with the statement "black people liking fried chicken is not racist." This means that I DO think black people liking fried chicken is racist, because I DON'T think that saying it isn't racist is true. If you still do not understand, use Boolean algebra or whatever and cancel out the "not" and the "not." This should give you "I agree that saying black people like eating fried chicken is racist."

"I did not mean to defend what Troy said." This is all I really need, okay? Understand? I have told you many times already that you have unconsciously given an example of Troy's belief. You said that an example of what he said was "presuming black people like fried chicken is not racist" (not quoting you). I did not agree with this, because I think that presuming black people like eating fried chicken IS racist.

:| "I will give you a problem with this line of thought after I report you for murdering your neighbor. It is weird that you would admit that you murdered your neighbor on here. In this day and age you aren't safe from the cops finding you just by being on the internet. Well, the cops will be by soon to arrest you after you admitted killing your neighbor." ??????

Oh, my dear poop. I have also told you that I think presuming black people like eating fried chicken is racist. I tried explaining that, but you argued with me. I didn't understand why, exactly, you chose to dispute me when you said before that you didn't actually dispute me.

-pauses to try to relieve your anger-

Hm...can you perhaps give me a quote in which I said that? Oh, uhm...this is awkward...or when you thought I said that?

Uhm, speaking loud enough does not mean using all caps. If what you wanted was emphasis, just say it calmly. You understand what I am saying whenever I speak calmly. Why not try the other way around as well?

Yet you disagree with everything else I say. I saw your paragraph, but what Troy said that you supported with an example was that racist notions are actually not racist sometimes and come true. I don't agree, because racist notions are always racist since you are addressing a specific race, and not in general of all the races. I told you this, you agreed ONCE and now disagree every other time. ???

Holy shoot, when have I? You support me, but you still try to argue with me. That is not right! That doesn't make sense! I don't support what Troy said, and since you disagreed with me disagreeing with Troy, I don't agree with you.

Here, what you are saying is that even though I don't agree with you, you think that you have been convincing me that you are with me.

-pauses to relieve your anger-

I never contradicted myself. I have always supported the statement that presuming a black person likes fried chicken is a racist notion.

Okay, uhm, I don't think you notice what I'm saying here. I understand that a racist notion made could actually be true in some cases, but it is still not right to make the notion. If you were to try to not offend the person, just don't say it in the first place. Yes, you are right that black people could end up liking fried chicken, but if you asked them in the first place, they would take it offensively. (Also, what would happen if they told you they didn't like eating it?)

I am reading your arguments as you argue with me. Those are your arguments. Understand this for a second. I did not agree with you saying that black people eating fried chicken is not racist. You disputed what I said. I disputed what you said. Thus, an argument such as this occurred. You say that you don't agree with what Troy said, yet you defend him on his comments with other people. There are also statements in which you claim that it was what Troy said and that what he said supports yours.

You shouldn't have to even search to which argument I am disputing. If you have no idea what this was supposed to dispute, then don't presume that it should never have been written based on what you wrote. ;)

Okay, good, you listened. However, you provided an example to Troy's statement about black people eating fried chicken. You told me that it was an example of a racist notion that is not racist. Now, you say that what Troy said was absolutely useless to this argument when you had provided the example because of him. This tells me a few things: 1) you said you ended up agreeing with me in the end when you really did not at the beginning 2) you claim you agree with me but you still argue with me 3) you end up contradicting yourself once more. :|

Wow, no way this is actually happening; I said that a racist notion is one such as presuming a black person likes fried chicken. FOR EXAMPLE, when you take out a black friend you just made to lunch and you ask him if he wants fried chicken, he will take that offensively in the most likely scenario because he knows that you are saying it based off of a common racist notion. Now, if it IS NOT a black person, and it is just an Asian person or a white person, you are not being racist for asking them if they want fried chicken because they know it is not a common racist notion. For some reason, people say BLACK people like fried chicken instead of WHITE or ASIAN people. This targeting of specific race is something called racism. When it is essentially NOT black people, they will not take it offensively because it is not meant for them. (Apparently, there is actually a reason for the notion, but all of the black people already know to hate it.)

-_-

I am fully convinced now that you make judgments based on the starts of people's statements. I never said that presuming black people to liking fried chicken is not racist. In fact, I have been saying the exact opposite this entire time. Please read my arguments. Perhaps you are confused because you did not read the rest of my KFC lunch example. I said at the end that this is known as a racist notion, and that it is not good.

Calm yourself. Do you think that I haven't gotten as angry as you have this entire time? Just because you are angry does not give you the right to yell at me. Now, you have never agreed with what I said if you can't seem to support what I am saying. That is not insanity; it is logic. If you support what I say and agree with me, try SIMPLY agreeing with me. You are always saying now that you think Troy's statement is completely useless, and are saying that you agree with me EVEN though I specifically told you that I don't agree with you nor Troy.

-pauses to try and relieve your anger-

Now if you notice, "presuming black people liking fried chicken" is a racist notion such as "presuming black people like fried chicken because THEY THINK it tastes good." Automatically thinking that black people like fried chicken is bad enough, but what you don't realize is " that they think fried chicken is good because you think THEY think it tastes good" is even worse. Now you are simply saying that their INTERESTS FOR FOOD are in fried chicken. They will assume you are being racist with them UNLESS you tell them that you like fried chicken and you were wondering if they would like it too. Maybe eight times out of ten they are not going to take it offensively. Not ten times because they might not have completely heard you. (Only at this point will they most likely not take it offensively, just in case you didn't hear what I said earlier :|)

I am responding to you with what Troy said because you yourself said in the beginning that you made an EXAMPLE of what Troy was saying; that was all you said, so I disagreed with you, and you got angry or whatever at what I said and said it was not true racism. I told you that it is racist when you presume black people like fried chicken and you responded with "He [Troy] said his racist notions come true. So, my comment should only be about racist notions that turn out to be true..." and "so you are saying that I was correct in including fried chicken in my example?"

-pauses to try and relieve your anger-

AFTER THIS you said, "Troy [TROY] said he has imagined someone acted a certain way because of stereotypes, and several times they actually acted that way" which is what you are (or were, apparently) supporting.

I am not in consent with the example you made of Troy's statement because I don't agree with what he said in the first place, and you say now that you think his comment is worthless.

I am reading them as you respond to my arguments. Those are your arguments, are they not?

Again, don't make so simple presumptions; I never agreed with making racist notions which is why I am arguing with you over this. What is so difficult about that? Racist notions are considered racist. I don't agree with racism.

You have said countless times that you have been saying things based off Troy's statements. You have just said that you haven't mentioned him in a while; if you decided not to care about his comment anymore, why are you saying that Troy said it and not you? You keep contradicting yourself. Decide if you are with Troy or if you aren't. Then return to me and I will try and talk to you again.

You said yourself that you don't actually agree with the things you are saying. How can I not make the assumption that you don't agree with Troy if you don't actually support what you are saying? I don't agree with Troy because I don't agree with you for supporting his statement with the example of black people and fried chicken; I am not in agreement with you because black people should not ever be presumed to liking fried chicken.

I understand what he is saying because I have read it countless times already. I did give you an example to look at, and I actually support it: the KFC lunch example. Please read it over again. ^_^

Please read my arguments again. ;)

"I mentioned that black people liking fried chicken was an example of a racist notion and since then you have considered me a racist for having that bit of text in my argument" Oh, my goodness. You have contradicted yourself twice so far in this conversation. I am considering you a racist because you think that presuming black people liking fried chicken is a racist notion. Don't ever think that they like fried chicken before they reveal to you that they do. If you don't understand, please try reading my arguments one more time.

I am addressing you head-on. Your arguments are basically your responses to my arguments. Are they not? Besides, if you did not understand what I was saying why were you seemingly agreeing with my examples? I am fine if you don't agree with all of them, but it is so very awkward to see someone claim they don't understand what you are saying when they have informed you that they agree with most of the examples they have stated. (For example, in the KFC situation you should never ask your black friend if he wants fried chicken. As well as this, you shouldn't really ever ask him if he wants to go to KFC. Ask him where he wants to go, and if he tells you that he wants to eat fried chicken after all you don't have to worry about being a racist anymore, and you could, perhaps, tell him you like fried chicken as well. You agreed with all these things, because you have seemingly read all my arguments.)

Please read the rest of my arguments if you do not understand what I am saying.

...since when did I ever make a racist notion? If you presume every human being likes fried chicken, is not racist. I have told you countless times that I understand what Troy is saying. I said that a generalization should not be mentioned to a black person, however, because they know those offensive racist jokes that you are trying to avoid telling them.

........just please read my arguments. If you make this generalization known to the black person, you will offend them. Do not just ask them if they want to eat fried chicken for lunch or dinner or whatever, just let them determine what they wish to eat. If they end up saying they want to have fried chicken, then it is not racist. I know that, I understand what you are saying. However, if you make the notion before, you will most likely be criticized as being racist.

.......you were saying how you never actually agreed with what you said (weird, yes), and since I do not share opinions with Troy, you must think that I support you. This is what I have seen based on your statements. Now, can you actually understand what my point is?

(If you don't know, I have put my points down in my arguments. Just try and read them over a bit to understand. Don't just pick little bits of statements and try to determine from them what I am saying as a whole. Just read the entire thing. That is what I do.)

Not sure if you're using sarcasm or not...

So why did you choose to make the example? It is wrong because you should never presume a black person likes eating fried chicken when they could actually not like eating fried chicken. It is simple; do not make those kinds of presumptions. Do not state they like fried chicken, do not even ask if they like fried chicken. If you are at KFC, just let them order what they want to order. Don't ask if they want fried chicken.

Like I said: I understand what Troy is saying about racist notions, but what you said about black people and fried chicken is not right at all no matter if it is a generalization or not. I never said I completely agreed with Troy. Because of your logic, I do not think that I would agree with you completely either. This is what I mean.

As I said, associating black people with fried chicken is not okay, especially if you are saying that it is okay by having small examples. It is quite clear that generalizing a racist joke is not racist, since it is not to the race itself. I am saying that black people should not---and never---be presumed to like eating fried chicken.

That is correct, though I don't FULLY agree with him. I know what Troy is saying, but I can't actually agree with him since racist thoughts are just never meant to be okay in any circumstance and should never be thought of as okay.

Continuing what was said earlier in my argument, generalizing a racist joke isn't considered racist, because it is addressed to a general group of people; HOWEVER, if you are to even try to mention that to the person you are making the notion AT, you are in an even worse position that you were in if you had just merely made the joke. This does not mean I support saying a racist thought, it means that racist notions are always bad. You made an example, but you were wrong in making the example.

I saw what Troy said. However, if you simply say that all people like fried chicken, it is not considered racist; saying black people like fried chicken implies racist notions. Therefore, addressing just a certain subset of racism does not make a sufficient argument for racism as a whole. Troy says racism can ultimately be true to certain people. Saying something racist to someone or a group of people is considered insulting. That is what racism is. Making "premeditated notions about an individual based on their appearance."

Are you serious? I said that it IS racist when you associate black people with automatically liking fried chicken.

Yes, good job. It isn't like I was insulting YOU with that slur...

Once again, that is only WHEN people's racist thoughts come true, and only to a particular subset of people or whatever. What you said was particular to the RACE ITSELF. Automatically associating black people with fried chicken is racist, I know you know that. There are some people, however, who wonder even about why they do that to them. They wonder, "Why not Indians? Why not white people? Why is it blacks?" This is where they assume it is a racist thought.

I know what Troy said. He addressed a particular aspect of racism. I understand that. Your example is not supporting his statement, because black people will take that offensively no matter if you did not mean to say it. I don't blame them.

Why would you bring up blacks with fried chicken? That is a racist notion, no matter what, when you are saying that they always like fried chicken. Yes, it is not racist when you say other people like fried chicken, but that is OTHER PEOPLE. If you show to a black guy that you think he loves fried chicken, it is considered racist. There is a chance perhaps four times out of ten that he might NOT like fried chicken. You said, "who doesn't like fried chicken?" There are lots of people included in that category who don't like fried chicken. Most likely some black people.

If you weren't, just do not say something like that.

You were only pertaining only to the black people fried chicken example. That does not make any sense.

What? Where did you even assume that? You said that liking fried chicken is fine. However, it is considered racist when you automatically associate liking fried chicken with black people.

Yes, nice job. I was providing you with the most popular place to make racist remarks. Asians. What is confusing about that? Note: thanks, thank you very much. I am Asian myself, and this is kinda what I hear almost every day, so...

Where do you come up with these presumptions? I am saying that if you are racist, you should essentially stop being racist. I was not trying to brag or jinx myself or anyone else or whatever. I was merely telling you that if you stopped, you would be rid of it for good and no one would ridicule you.

This depicts the average workday. Your life would not be like this if you were someone more popular and more well-known. Obvious, but true.