Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
Unthinking Majority wrote:The 2nd amendment is stupid.
The American War of independence started over gun control.
Drlee wrote:No it didn't. It is a nice fiction though. I have heard it before.
Do you think insulting people is a good argument?
To that end they set about disarming the free English people of the Colonies.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.
You literally just clarified that when you call someone an SJW, you mean it in an insulting manner.
Getting back to the topic, do you think the US is inherently racist?
@Julian658 Racism means to judge an individual according to ancestry or phenotype.
Drlee wrote:Wrong again son:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Maybe, now that you know the definition, you will not be so inclined to be obvious.
You definition of racism requires one group to feel superior and the other group to feel inferior.
You are talking about an emotional response related to perceived discrimination from a group that is supposed to have superior standing.
The effect will be maximized if the discriminated person has any type of insecurity. This may trigger the amygdala and an emotional response is created. In this context the person that complains of racism implies a discrepancy in status, an acknowledgement of insecurity.
This is how racism is perceived in America. The person that is supposed to have a lower status is conditioned to react with anguish. That is why we have racial PTSD in America.
I grew up in Latin America and my self esteem was formed in childhood. There is nothing anyone can say to me that is racist because I see everybody as an equal. I do not perceive differences and hence there cannot be racism among equals.
Sure, I accept that those in power can discriminate those in a less powerful position, but I simply call that discrimination and it does not imply racial group superiority or inferiority.
XogGyux wrote:When people's argument can no longer hold water, they start trying to pull hairs on definitions... as if definitions is the issue...
Drlee wrote:No. Webster's dictionary defines it as that. I agree with them.
You are not a psychiatrist so I would just leave that alone if I were you.
Racism in the US is not a mere perception. It is a tangible reality. This is not even open for debate. Black people (and some others) are not harmed by racism because they get anxious. They are harmed economically, physically, intellectually and psychologically. In other words, the sequela of racism is not simply a self-esteem hit akin to being chosen last for football.
Actually this is the worst thing you could have said in your own defense. There most certainly can be racism among equals. That is the very definition of it. Your personal opinion of yourself is irrelevant. Millions of people in the US and perhaps billions around the world do not perceive others as their equals and act on that perception.
Drlee wrote:But you bring up an interesting point. Clearly the framers were referring not to the private ownership of arms but rather the right of militias to keep arms. There was, after all, no real attempt by the British to disarm individuals. They did want to prevent powerful militias. That is why "a well ordered militia" is in the constitution. I think that if you asked Jefferson or Adams whether individuals should own canon they would have laughed in your face.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
XogGyux wrote:Does this forum have an ignore feature? We are in desperate need of one.
You got to have big balls to criticize a country t[…]
No idea what you are waffling about. New Zealand[…]
:lol: You have a foolish way of looking at it. He […]