Pioneer1

frankster If it is a Malicious thought....it is always harmful - often first to the Thinker If it's harmful, what damage does it cause to the thinker? And I stand by that... Well, you can STAND BY a garbage can. Doesn't mean what you're "standing by" has much value to it. Either intended to do harm or having caused harm No, you said ALWAYS does. Meaning ALWAYS violent. And I just showed you it doesn't mean that. You better hurry up and find something else to lean against, lol. I do not twist words Maybe the WORDS aren't twisted....maybe YOU are. You show your own guilt by your opening statement....."no I haven't" and it's not enough - Which is it? You said: You have... "You have" means you accused me of claiming Africans are more violent, in which I replied NO I haven't. You also said: malicious and attacking is enough ...... implyng that it was enough to accuse me of claiming Africans are more violent. And I said NO...it's not enough because I didn't make that statement and again you're setting up strawmen arguments and pinning those assertions and accusations ON me in order to have a target to argue against since your initial ones failed. but malicious is most often is violent.... Show me a Malicious Action that isn't violent? You just said MOST OFTEN, which implies....like I just said...not ALWAYS. Since you believe that malicious is MOST OFTEN (implying not always 100% of the time) violent, then YOU should be able to think of one yourself....lol. Your dishonesty knows no bounds Probably because it doesn't exist. Here is a quote of your query that I was answering Ok, so can you please give me an example of someone who was tolerant but violent? There was no mention of at the "same time" The word "but" in that question clearly implies "same time". Among other things, the word "but" implies 2 simultaneous concepts at the same time. -I'm at home BUT I'm busy....doesn't mean I'm at home but later on I'm busy. I'm at home AND I'm busy at the same time. -I'm driving but I'm eating. It doesn't mean I'm driving THEN I pull over to eat, but doing both at the same time. "Then" would imply 2 separate times, but not "but". Tolerance has Limits....beyond which it will not go. ....at which point violence often takes over. Which again proves my point that a person can't be tolerant AND violent at the same time. *The only exception to this is if that violence is CONSENTUAL for example some sort of "sexual" violence or violence in entertainment. In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved. You couldn't support your initial claims about Africa being tolerant where different groups get along together amicably, so now you're attempting to CHANGE your argument to a comparison of "how tolerant" and "how violent" Africa is compared to other places and then paint yourself as some sort of "defender" of the African people against unwarranted criticism. I see you and what you're TRYING to do.

franster I said malicious DOES NOT necessarily mean violent. In response you said, It always does.... I said you were wrong. In response you said, provide your evidence Ok...... This definition proves you wrong 2 ways: 1. It says that being malicious having or showing a desire to cause HARM but as we've argued before, harm doesn't necessarily mean violence. But even if you believe it does..... 2. Malicious is having or showing the DESIRE to cause harm, not necessarily actually CAUSING it. So even if you believe harm = violence, being malicious is only the DESIRE to do so not the act itself. Which proves YOU wrong about maliciousness "always" meaning violent So you posted something that does not back your claim... Why you try to use our ancestors to support your lies??? 1. I haven't lied and you haven't proven it. 2. I was making a point by asking since you wanted to twist MY words to support your claims, why didn't you twist HIS to do the same? You have....malicious and attacking is enough No I haven't and it's not enough. You're lying and making up positions to attribute to me to support your failed arguments. Quite FRANKLY....frankster....I thought this would be a bit beneath you. Malicious is violent.. As I've shown and proven already, not necessarily. The buddhist above that i quoted and linked were initially tolerant....but then became violent - after being push too far. They WERE tolerant but BECAME violent. Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. They will be one or the other. They may be tolerant at ONE point in time but once they became violent they were no longer tolerant. It's the same with nations. A nation that was ONCE tolerant can BECOME violent, which at that point they will no longer be tolerant.

frankster What's the difference....in your opinion...between RACE and ETHNIC GROUP?

Yeah, what happened to the "Oath Keepers"....lol.

Why??? Lol...you just EXPLAINED why, when you said why YOU acknowledge it also. It's the language we use.

ProfD Lets wait and see if Pope Leo XIV self-identifies as a Black man. I seriously doubt that he will I don't believe he will either, and I hope he doesn't. We don't need this "one drop" garbage getting more attention than it has to and spreading around the planet influencing how other non-Black people may start categorizing themselves. Especially when they recognize the benefits of being considered Black now and in the future. Cynique I didn't imply that no Italians are blacker than the current pope. I said -- Wait, hold on...HERE'S what you said: "If the Pope's maternal grand parents are mulatto, then there arent any Italians who are more black than him. " Your ONLY criteria for no Italians being more Black than the Pope was if both his maternal grand parents were mulatto ...and they were. So you basically said that no Italians were Blacker than the Pope. if, as you stated, they're blacker than the current Pope, they are not fully Italian and furthermore were probably in the same category as the Pope. ....and what do you mean by "fully Italian"???? *Message To The Young Black Men Lurking: After demanding that she do so, this 90+ year old woman said: "And no more of your demands will be met. I refuse to waste anymore time splitting hairs on this issue. " In other words, she actually DID meet some of my demands! Which goes to show you that no matter how young YOU are or how old the WOMAN is...a man is a man! Amen? (pun intended...lol) It tells you that if you're a man who stands on business...she has no choice BUT to submit. Bow down. And concede to your demands! Now you boys take that lesson with you through out your lives and you'll have every woman calling you "daddy" in no time! Troy Bingo. @Pioneer1 the key word here is implicit. I'll give you another "key word": STRAWMAN An intelligent exchange should be over what each party ACTUALLY SAID, not over what they "implied" or what you WANT them to say but they won't....so you'll just make up something and pin it on them anyway to have something valid to argue against. Where did you get this definition of the Black race? What definition? I don't recall offering any definitions except to say that Black is Black. You do realize most ADOS have European, or so called "white" ancestry, right? You have in the past call people who to your reckoning are white, when they are ethnically Black. What makes your reasoning problematic is that you reject people who claim a Black ethnicity because don't like the way they look. ADOS is an ethnicity but Black isn't an ethnicity, it's a race. Race IS about genetics....which often includes looks. frankster "One Drop" is the standard and most popular historically used metric to decide delineate and define race....in the Racist/Racism World view. We can acknowledge it, but we don't have to accept it. Which and or What lie? That "one drop" of Black blood or any Black ancestry makes one Black. That's false. No....not Racial. Both Blacks and Whites did not know they were Black or White till they Arrive in the West...and became Aware of the 'Ideology of Racism that governs Western Society . Seeing as how Whites went out of their way to leave Europe and go to Africa to get people to enslaved, they obviously saw a difference between themselves and Africans...regardless as to the terms they may have used for those differences.

Troy Why are you introducing the words "exclusively" and "all" into the discussion??? Who said "all" people named this were of this gender or people with that name were "exclusively" of that gender?????? You're introducing extremes and trying to make them MY argument.

Troy I'm trying a different technique by asking questions that I hope will help you see things in a different way. Sounds to me like you're trying to either confuse or take the focus off of the obvious...lol. That science clearly acknowledges race and racial differences! If you are trying to count the number of people Black and white people with diabetes give me a reason to justify excluding the Hispanic ones? Because Blacks and Whites are RACES and Hispanic is not.

ProfD The text you pulled up reads traditionally considered...not commonly understood Either way, the point is MOST people in this society consider "Shannon" a girl's name. So I have to question why most people in this thread...for some reason...don't? Cynique "It should be "most of you on here DON'T come from this society not DOESN'T come from this society. Sheeze. Dummy. " It SHOULD be....about time for you to take your medicine and take your bewildered ass back to bed, shouldn't it? Troy Actually, if you look deeper a century ago, perhaps, the names were roughly equal between men and women. Perhaps??? Lol....are you sure about this? Regardless at to the situation 100 years ago, TODAY it's mostly a female's name and it's been that way for decades now. Today in the name is given to both boys and girls equally. Are you sure about this also? If you encountered the name "Shannon" on a resumè, could you guarantee that the person was female? About as much as I'd "guarantee" that a person named "Leroy Jackson" would be a Black man, lol.

I heard that Trump allegedly brokered a cease fire but they're still fighting. Kind of like the Russia-Ukraine "cease fire" and the Israeli-Palestinian "cease fire".....not even worth the paper the alleged agreements were written on.

But calling OTHER people "dummy" when YOU are the one running around making mistakes IS something you should be ashamed of....if you had shame, lol. But I know you don't know any better, so I won't hold it against you.

Cynique Check out the second word in the above paragraph. The reason you posted the pictures was to show how the Italians in question "looked No. The reason I posted those pictures was in response to you implying that "no Italians" are Blacker than the current Pope. Those pictures of Italians...with strong African features...proves that some indeed are. frankster To have Black Ancestry you must be a descendant of Enslaved Africans....Continental Africans who were colonized but not enslave are Africans. You seem to be implying that there is a racial difference between "Blacks" and "Africans".

You just admitted you screwed up but want to call OTHER people "dummy". Make THAT make sense...lol.

I asked you a question and I DEMAND an answer. Who made the argument of one "looking" more Italian than the other?????

Lol...man, what are you getting at? Sounds like (@ProfD said: "reads like"....lol ) you're trying to set up an argument.