Pioneer1

After dealing with different types of people for decades I've discovered that during the course of a conversation: -There are people who stop talking and actually LISTEN to what the other conversant is saying. -And those who stop talking but instead of listening they're only waiting until the other conversant "shuts up" so they can continue running THEIR mouths.

A true culture includes your own language, your own religion or moral values, your own dietary habits, ect....... I used to think Black people in America had our own culture, but I now realize that to be more accurate what Black America has is actually a SUB-CULTURE. .....a modified form of Western culture that we were forced to carve out for ourselves to fit our needs and protect ourselves. If we hadn't, we would have been swallowed up decades if not centuries ago. But we really do need a COMPLETE culture of our own because I think it would be key to our success. It was African themed, but I think the Black Panther movies gives us a TASTE of what it would look like if Black America had it's own genuine successful culture. Although some Black people are smart enough and talented enough to find success in this society, the majority don't. I've said time and time again that Black people are the most successful when we play OUR way and by OUR OWN rules. If you look at illegal "street" venues like drugs, prostitution, and other illegal trades....Black people tend to thrive. The only thing that destroys their business operations getting arrested locked up, not poor business decisions...lol. Why? Because atleast when it comes to the street life they can make up their OWN rules without having to follow rigid guidelines, ever increasing demands for more education, and other obstacles put in their way in order to be successful.

Troy yes I still agree with the what Cynique wrote. Lets say that someone overheard me use the word Black or white to describe people. They might fall under the false assumption that I believe in Black and white races because I usedd the term in casual conversations Yes, I understand totally what you just said. However that is NOT the argument. A statement was made that science NEVER espouses religion. Despite the wealth of information that Del presented and me pointing out how scientists use terms like "Before Christ" as well as named planets and days of the week after deities of ancient GREEK RELIGION (mythology)....... You apparently still agree with Cynique that it NEVER does.

Cynique YAWN. Whatever. i'm going to watch the Oscars. As insipid as this program is, its better than wasting my time bickering with you and Del Now why am I NOT SUPRISED that a woman who just accused Africans of being cannibals who dance around boiling pots.....would rather watch a bunch of rich White people win awards for who's the best liar and pretender instead of talking with Black people about a Black movie, LOL.

Thanks for admitting your statement was atleast PARTIALLY wrong. I believe in congradulating progress, even if it's not complete....as a way of encouraging more.

Despite all of the speculation by your beloved White scientists.......no one today really KNOWS whether or not ancient Africans practiced cannibalism, so it would be silly to put it in the movie as an "African practice". However because WE ALL KNOW that Africans (both here and on the continent of Africa) practice POLYGAMY wide spread....then perhaps they SHOULD HAVE put that into the movie.

Ohhhh NOOOWWWW you're admitting that atleast an itsy bitsy tiny piece of your statement may contain some wrong in it...lol. OK, now we're starting to get somewhere. We're on our way yall !

I don't KNOW that ancient Africans practiced cannibalism (and neither do you) .....but I DO KNOW that Africans practice polygamy today. Instead of digging up ancient history that neither you nor I can actually prove, how about discussing something that is going on among Africans TO THIS VERY DAY that both you and I can easily verify.

Cynique Yes. This is what's known as being practical. So these scientists ESPOUSED religious terms to their scientific work for pratical purposes. The argument isn't whether they needed to or not, or whether it was practical or not....the argument was whether they ever DID IT or not. And they clearly did....which means your statement was wrong.

Del I like honesty and choice. There's a stigma about sexuality. Apparently Ben Franklin was a swinget in France. I believe that back then....as well as today.....most of the powerful elitists are "swingers" who swap wives and have all types of girlfriends and boyfriends on the side Most powerful people in Western society don't take their marriages OR their religions seriously, it's just ritual and custom for them. I read today where that Meghan Markle who is preparing to marry Prince Harry CHANGED her religion to "Anglican" which is the official religion of England. She didn't convert out of true faith and enlightenment...she converted for political reasons! People swap wives, engage in all types of sexual behaviors, have tons of sexual partners, and claim to be married Christians simply to maintain a public image and keep the masses in line so that they won't get the idea to do the same. Cynique Because the black guys who made Black Panther realized that the African tradition of polygamy contributed absolutely nothing to the telling of their story Oh really? I guess I didn't know that was the reason because I don't hang out with them and have lunch with them every day LIKE YOU DO. So they didn't tell me all of this like they TOLD YOU....lol. 　 As long as irrelevant issues are being raised, the question could also be asked why there was no reference to cannibalism, another ancient African tradition. Has any African ever told you that cannibalism was an ancient African tradition? Or did you hear this from one of your beloved White scientists that you have so much love for and trust in? Throw that in the mix with sex and kill 2 birds with one stone Why don't we throw it in the mix with you and your 72 year old "lazy lover" in bed....lol Perhaps dogging rocks is the only thing that'll get him to "move around".....lol.

Troy I don't discount the impact a network has on 50 million households. But when you compare it with networks that can be seen in 150 million households for free, clearly the broadcast networks have more influence and power. It really disappoints me how so many Black radio and television shows started going ON-LINE back in the late 90s and on up to today. Now they're owned by Youtube and other hosts and providers. Where as when they had their own radio program they could pretty much say whatever they wanted as long as it didn't break community standards. Now essentially Google, Youtube, and Amazon are telling them what they can and can't say and threatening to cut them off if they don't comply. Black people should have kept THEIR OWN television and radio stations that we had in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

Troy There are Black listeners and broadcasters on right wing AM radio. "White people without college education, especially uneducated White men," as you described them, are not the only ones affected by this form of media. One out of 12 Black voters voted for Trump. If race doesn't exist.....how do you know these listeners, broadcasters, and voters were Black? -perhaps they were racist conservatives simply CALLING themselves "Black" in order to make their political views seem more diverse.

Troy science itself does not espouse religion, but individual scientists may in their own personal lives. OK, thanks for making your position on this matter clear ENOUGH FOR ME....lol. I try not to throw around absolute terms like "never." I can tell by your capitalization of the word, that you are placing emphasis on this word. Despite this, I still agree with Cynique on this issue Well, her use of the term NEVER is exactly why I pressed the issue with her. We can argue back and for over the EXTENT religion influences science but when you say it NEVER is espoused to science....that's a pretty bold statement. You said you try not to use the term NEVER...which is wise.....but you still AGREE with her that science never espouses religion. Cynique illustrating how people use items for purposes other than their intended use when something else is not available, as an example of science taking what was available in the case of BC/AD delineation. So you believe that scientists used and still use the religious terms BEFORE CHRIST and YEAR OF OUR LORD simply because they couldn't think of any other terms to use????? Lol......what a reach.

Got a lot in this thread I need to read through but.............. Someone or ones mentioned something about REAL Christians versus hypocrites or something not really being about Jesus and Christianity and used to claim that science not being influenced by religion or that the early academic and science scholars weren't really religious..... I have to say this is a REAL REACH, and a slippery slope. If we're going to start picking and choosing who's a REAL Christian or what they REALLY believed in their hearts- Or who represents the REAL teachings of Jesus or what is TRUE Christianity- Everyone has their own opinion about this and nothing is going to get resolved. Some of you believe the religion of Christianity is about love and forgiveness. I believe it was a political movement designed to unite Europe and had little to do with Jesus. Cynique The bottome line is, you said that science NEVER espouses religion. Both Del and me provided a wealth of information to prove that it DOES from time to time. So you were proven wrong....in more ways than just one. So if your issue with me isn't the fact that I'm right but HOW I present my truth....well here Del is presenting those truths to you in another way and you're STILL arguing with him and refusing to accept it. 　 　 Troy You are arguing individual points that me and Del are making, but where exactly do you stand on the point Cynique has made that science NEVER espouses religion? Do you agree or disagree?

Troy HBO is cable television.....you have to subscribe to it. I'm talking about BROADCAST television that freely comes over the airwaves. The stations that reach the vast majority of people in the United States. NBC, ABC, CBS, ect.... On these television stations you still can't see nudity, certain cuss words are censored out, but you can witness all of the graphic violence you desire.

Cynique Nobody said they were against woman having multiple husbands. I simply made the realistic observation that in today's modern open society, single woman can and do play the field, but when it comes to marriage, they are looking for that one Mr. Right, rather than deluding themselves into thinking that any man worth having would consent to being a member of a team of husbands married to one woman. Get real. Well what's wrong with giving people who want to do it the OPTION to do it? Whether you agree with it or not, step back and let THEM make that decision. 　 Would you want to be one among the multiple husbands of a woman? What's "open and progressive" about this? It is a form of exploitation, by the person who has more than one spouse. Who would voluntarily want to be in the pecking order for a shared mate? You? It's more beneficial to just be a "side piece". There are a WHOLE LOT of men who are "sharing women" in this society right now. What do you call it when a woman is cheating on her husband with another or multiple men? These men are SHARING one woman. And it's the same way with men who cheat on their wives. The women in the affair knows the man is married and is SHARING him with his wife. 　 Single women, like single males, lead the kind of lives they want to so why was the subject of polygamy even raised by the person who raised it? Because the person who raised it (Pioneer...lol) wanted to know why an AFRICAN TRADITION was left out of an African themed movie. Delano Perhaps societies that at more open, fair or equitable or about sexual relationships, would also be more progressive in the main This is true. Sex and sexual relationships are one of the most tender and akward of social subjects and if a society is free enough to allow sexual freedom...then we can be pretty sure there is more freedom in less touchy subjects. 　 People are smart enough to not say this publicly. Lest some uninvolved party judge There is a huge difference between what people say and what they do. The Down Low indeed. Excellent point. And that's exactly what this society forces too many people to do.....lie. It's better to have a free and open society where consenting adults are allowed to do as they please than to FORCE them into an arrangement that clearly doesn't work for most people. You may be confusing a harem with polygamy polyandry or polyamory. She's not confused....lol....she's trying to CAUSE confusion. She doesn't really have a position, just wants to argue. Like I said in another thread, if I'm not here she'll find you or Mel or someone else to start a meaningless argument with. But I'm glad you brought up these points. I should do a thread on these different concepts....... Polygamy Polyandry Polyamory

Lol..... Is this the SAME Joel Osteen who wouldn't let desperate people into his church for sanctuary when Houston was flooding out from the hurricane until he was shamed on social media into doing it? Troy But religions must expand and convert others in order to survive, so by their very nature they must try to influence others. Not only that, but I see most religions as just massive mind control programs. Infact, I'd say they are a major reason why humanity as a whole hasn't advanced more than it has so far because they LIMIT people in thought and action. Based on some scriptures they read in the Bible, most Christians thought that the Earth was flat and because of this people in Europe were afraid to sail too far away for fear of falling off the Earth. Only when they challenged this idea and eventually broke away from it did Europe begin to see a resurgence of prosperity and discovery (that led to slavery and exploitation ofcourse).

Troy Could you go into more detail about what you mean?

　 In any event, it will be very difficult to prove he was fired because of racism. It's designed to be that way. Racists have been very shrewed over the years in crafting legislation in a way that now employers can fire a person for almost any reason under the sun and have it hold up in court....AS LONG AS THEY DON'T STATE THE REASON. Almost all states in the United States have become what is known as "right to work" states. Meaning unless you're in a union, employers have a right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all.....we no legal recourse. This has opened the door for racial discrimination and led to Black workers all across the nation being terminated by the thousands. Aside from the racial aspect, there is also a CULTURAL aspect to Tavis's dismissal that I don't like. It appears that whether it's PBS, Fox, ABC, or other networks....they have a problem with anything related to sex or sexual promiscuity and the image of it. I still remember how they freaked out over Janet Jackson's nipple being seen during the Super Bowl, lol. I mean, is there any logical reason why graphic violence is all over the major networks but nudity (even a bare butt) is STILL censored? It seems as if there are forces in this nation hell bent on maintaining a "puritanical "standard with a strong "anti-sexuality" at the core of it's value system and demanding that everyone submit themselves to this value system.

Del Excellent point about so many of the universities in the United States being founded as religious institutions!!! Cynique What god does science worship? What science does religion preach? Western science is DRENCHED in ancient Greek religion and religious philosophy: Doctors in the science of medicine take the oath of HIPPOCRATES....an ancient Greek deity. The science of GEOLOGY gets it's name "geo" from Gaia a Greek deity. If you look at the science of astronomy, many of the planets (Mars and Jupiter) and many of the space craft (Apollo) are named after ancient Greek deities. These are glaring examples of religion and mythology mixed with science. Cynique, do the right thing and admit that you were WRONG about science never being espoused to religion....lol.

Cynique 　 Translation: " Oh....that..?? Oh....uh...well....see..no I wasn't trying to humiliate or belittle them..... No....see....uh....what I MEANT to do when I said all that was see....well...wha had happened was.....you and me was arguing over red lipstick...and see....THEN.....Zaji had said something and I wasn't sure what she had said...... and see...THEN Del had said something and then...yeah..but ..now we all straight". Lol. No, you didn't make up all those quotes. You simply did what you always do: cherry-pick to make yourself look good. Lol, if my quoting you makes me look good....what does that say about YOU?

I believe in dialog, sharing opinions, and seeing things from eachother's perspective. However at the end of the day....there are still some things that are definately true and definately false. Truth must be accepted once it's proven. We must not reject the truth simply because it wasn't presented to us in a way that we would like or how we expect it to be or because it came from someone we don't like. A naked truth is better than a well dressed lie.

Delano I totally support women having the right to marry more than one husband if they choose to do so. For me, polygamy means BOTH men and women having the right to choose multiple spouses as long as all involved are consenting adults. That would be an example of REAL sexual freedom. 　 Cynique My response was to Pioneer's implication equating polygamy with liberating women from the monogamous society which has a history of oppressing them Once again you're ATTEMPTING to misconstrue my position, lol. I didn't say that polygamy either LIBERATED or OPPRESSED women. Polygamy and monogamy have ALMOST NOTHING to do with how advanced or repressed women are in society. For thousands of years women had more rights in polygamous Sub-Saharan Africa than they had in monogamous Western Europe. And today women have more rights in monogamous Western Europe than in polygamous Middle Eastern countries. The point is....one has nothing to do with the other.

Like Del said, no need to have an emotional reaction. If you think I'm wrong about something.....cut out all the insults and just prove it. Show us EXACTLY what I said that was wrong.

Once again, YOUR WRONG...lol....but I don't expect you to admit it. According to the plot, it's not a "futuristic" society but a hidden CONTEMPORARY one parallel with the outside world. And whether a society practices polygamy or not has NOTHING to do with how elevated the women are. Western civilization has STRICTLY instituted and promoted monogamy through out it's entire history and has also been one of the most oppressive societies for women.