₦airaland Forum

why do you ask?

I mean, her statement about african americans can be compared to statements people make like - most Nigerians are corrupt or thieves. I know that is crap, and though many people I've seen making that statement may not know much about nigerians, they should know that the actions of a few do not represent an entire people and thus they are being prejudicial.

what wasn't funny? She isn't just some person who is ignorant about african americans. So I cannot just let it go based on that. There is only one time on this forum I've responded harshly to someone's ignorant comment w/o realizing their ignorance (due to their age). Otherwise, I think i've been pretty good at recognizing statements being made from a lack of information.

i don't think you understand nferyn

apparently, they believe that speaking in tongues DID NOT exist in the catholic church until very recently

what does what you feel about premarital sex have to do with someone being ugly?

premarital sex doesn't mean indiscriminant sex, there is a difference between having sex with 1000 people you were interested in, and the one or two persons you were in serious relationships with. I cannot see how anyone is advocating ppl being required to have sex with someone just because they were interested in them.

sorry, african americans - as a person who lives in the usa, the two terms are synonymous.

thats not what i said is it?

No. If we were both white, and you made a racist statement about blacks, even if I wasn't affected, I'd still not be happy with you.

this is crap

I'm not one of those who cries racist at everything, I just say it when I see something racist.

Saying that the "good" african american is the rare african american is racist, no matter how you try to explain it. If you are truely not racist, you should find a better way to voice what you actually think. However, so far, your explanations have not deviated from what I would consider racist.

But let me give you the benefit of the doubt. . .let me look at your posts, and see if I can seriously interpret good to mean "good for WesleyanA". .

Hmm, there is almost enough to say, nah, she couldn't possibly have meant what she said the way I interpreted it. . . but let me think about my high school. . and middle school, and HBCU's I've visited, and the people I know. . . .and I'm too insulted. Even applying the filter of your standards - your statement still does not hold - the people who meet your standards are not rare. I'm guessing you are old enough to know this, so for you to still hold these ideas, there can be only one logical conclusion.

heh. . .i didn't even want to pursue that angle. .

WesleyanA. . .I know exactly what you mean.

It still doesn't change anything I said.

WesleyanA:
Don't misinterprete my post allonym. i don't mean black generally. I mean black as in "African Americans".
"good" is a general word too. everyone is "good". there's no completely "bad" person. but there are certain characteristics certain individuals see as "bad" like i do. so when i say: " "good" African Americans are rare", I was talking for myself.

there are some really nice "african american" guys but i think they are rare.
i'm talking about those that: don't smoke, talk ghetto, drink, get into trouble a lot, get bad grades,fight, swear a lot, are not loud.. . see what i mean? they are rare! most of the ones i know are mixed even though a few are not.

my reply still stands:

allonym:
holy. . . WesleyanA . .you're joking right. You really mean to say that the good black person is the rare black person. . . that statement is a word beginning with rac and ending with ist.

you can replace black with african american or whatever you want.

your statement is very demeaning, wrong, and hateful.

you still misunderstand.

In the example I gave, knowing that america rewrote history or had a hand in writing it, and probably skewed things in their favor, I have three choices

1) Believe everything
2) Believe nothing
3) Take what I see with a grain of salt

I choose #3. I'm not going to fully trust their version. Even if they are the ONLY source of information, that doesn't implicitly guarantee my trust.

sorry. . . i was just going after you for the way you phrased that post

no prob

ok, so maybe you are not a pig, but you plan on manipulating whatever woman you are with. . .

when something requires you to believe in it, that means there is no solid argument for it.

I don't have to believe in my hand, I know it exists. I can solidly prove to you it does.

i have been going to chruch for over 20 years. I have never heard one.

I'm just trying to show him that the premise of his argument, that people feel a need to reproduce, expains why homosexuals would feel that need. Unless he's saying homosexuals aren't people, which I don't think he's saying. . .

my point is that you cannot blame darwin or other people for the lack of solid arguments for God's existence in the bible.

It not so much wrote the bible. It is not the writers of the bible that give it credibility. Even if Einstein wrote the bible, the problems with it would still be the same.

Assumine Einstein writes the bible exactly the way it is now.

meaning:

Mark - a man not right with God

God - "hi Mark"

Mark - "leave me alone God"

God - "I love you mark"

Mark - "Stop calling me, God"

those were your words, not mine

i'm sure God talks to many people who are not right with him too.

So you're saying you should be the only pig to manipulate her.