Pioneer1

Mel There is an argument to be made that Ethiopia was INDEED colonized. Not by Europeans...but by racist Middle Easterners centuries ago. It is theorized that the original peoples of what is now known as Ethiopia were dark skinned Bantu people with kinky hair. Over the centuries they were warred upon and colonized and even displaced by the lighter skinned Habesha and Sabean peoples who in many instances were (and still are) openly racist and anti-Black.

frankster The Answer is because the very thought is Harmful as the article testifies to... Reading and watching various research and experimentation....is how I came to that knowledge. Always? Ok, so if that very thought itself is harmful...doesn't it harm YOU just talking about it? If you have a discussion with a person who has homicidal thoughts...according to your logic, wouldn't them sharing their thoughts with you harm YOU as well? At the beginning of the quoted text it says '"Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation" Didn't see the word "always" in there, but.... Exactly....current knowledge backs up the Ancient Teachings Can you name me 3 examples of current knowledge that backs up ancient teachings ATTRIBUTED to Jesus or Buddha? Their words having survive this long....shows the wisdom of their method. That's my point... We don't know that it's THEIR words. I am address only that which is contradictory.... Then you wouldn't be addressing ANYTHING, on my end...lol. .just pointing out that the exception is indeed contradictory to your initial statements You left out "or a people" which is ONE of TWO major components to the concept of being BOTH tolerant and violent at the same time. The other being "sanctioned violence". One must be able to not only read the words....but to understand what is not being said and what's being implied One must not smoke weed before reading the words though or you will be DELUDED and see things into them that the author of those words didn't intend...lol. tolerance has limits Exactly. At which point they are no longer tolerant. Again, unless it's sanctioned....a person or people can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. Members of the majority Buddhist Burmese population have forcibly displaced many of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group mainly centered in the southwest of the country. Over the last decade, hundreds of Muslims have been murdered, mosques have been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homes Ok, now this wasn't part of the original excerpt that you kept posting. Now this DOES give examples of Buddhist violence. Now we have something to work with.... However, unfortunately for YOU...it's NOT an example of SANCTIONED violence; so it wouldn't qualify as an example of a people being BOTH tolerant and violent. It's MURDER. Murder generally speaking isn't sanctioned violence. Nor is it tolerance. It's violence AGAINST THE WILL of the murdered victim. Murder is a major act of INTOLERANCE both on the part of the victim AND the perpetrator. Again, a society can NOT be tolerant and violent as the same time UNLESS that violence is sanctioned.

Well, you didn't "need" to know that President Joe Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Why? Now that you know...what could YOU or anyone else who doesn't have the power to heal him, do for him? But like that old saying goes..."enquiring minds want to know". He was a global leader and people want to stay "on top" of things that affect the globe. Spain is a major Western nation and if power ends up going on in the ENTIRE nation, that's certainly newsworthy even if it's not absolutely necessary to know. It could happen here or somewhere else.

Troy Even if one buys into your premise that all women find Black men the sexiest. That's not my premise. One would have to believe all the media outlets are colluding with other -- in complete secrecy to bring down successful and innocent Black men with coordinated campaigns. The media outlets THEMSELVES don't have to, just the racists IN the media. No doubt many of the racists in different media outlets coordinate with eachother; however that's not necessary. Racists are often "on code" with eachother and don't need to communicate or coordinate with eachother on most things. They simply use whatever position they happen to be in to practice their racism. Take law enforcement for example...... A racist cop in Boston doesn't have to coordinate or "conspire" with a racist cop in San Diego in order to brutalize Black people. They both share the same mindset of using their authority and targeting Black citizens and brutalizing them when they can . It's the same with the racists in the media. The racists in different media outlets don't even have to know eachother, but they have the same mindset of using their positions in the media to promote racist imagery and portray Black people negatively when they can. I heard the woman who Diddy beat in the hotel was forced to have some guy piss in her mouth! As if this hasn't been going on for DECADES if not CENTURIES among Whites. Who do you think Black people like Puffy LEARNED it from???? That wasn't a standard "sexual" practice in Africa or even among Black Americans UNTIL "integration" and learning it from White folks. ...but guess who's image of it gets plastered all over the internet and media for freakishness and perverted sex??? Epstein was one of the biggest perverts and freaks of them all but you don't hear SHIT about what HE was forcing women to do. Do you? Not in detail...like this. Now you got silly negroes sitting up here listening to this shit night and day and gossiping about it shaking their heads, meanwhile the White man they're working right next to is doing MUCH WORSE and MUCH MORE PERVERTED things to women; but they'll invite HIM to the family BBQ.

Another excuse for the racists IN the media (not the "racist media" but those racists who have imbedded themselves IN the media) to portray Black people in a negative light. Prison and jail escapes are routine around this nation. Some jail breaks are bigger than others, I'm not sure how big this one was compared to others....but this LOCAL incident has certainly gotten a lot of NATIONAL and GLOBAL attention. They couldn't wait to flash the mug shots of these escapees....who happen to be ALL BLACK MEN...on screens around the country.

ProfD Are you suggesting the punishment for insider trading should be similar to loitering or jaywalking? No, but consider these 2 crimes and there respective penalties: INSIDER TRADING FELONIOUS ASSAULT Do you think it's "justice" that a person can theoretically get more time in prison for dishonest stock market activity than if they actually assault someone with a deadly weapon??? Folks are imprisoned as a deterrent to committing crimes. Just like there are other ways to make millions without lying, there are other ways to deter crime without enacting draconian laws....that STILL don't deter them anyway but simply force people to be more clever in breaking them.

So if you don't believe there are RACES (plural) what did you mean when you said: Friday at 05:31 AM You clearly distinguished Black as a "race". Unless you are saying that the Black race is the ONLY race....this surely suggests that there are others.

frankster Because it says Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation.......These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers,........While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts I understand what "it" says. "It" is an article, a non-person. I'm asking YOU (frankster) how do YOU know that malicious thoughts are "always" harmful? That's a broad and very general statement. How did YOU get into a position to know whether or not every malicious thought was harmful...lol. Besides.... I don't see the word "always" in that text. I see the words "can cause" in it and "can be" speaking on potential but nothing in it says they are "always" harmful. Whether or not it is their own personal belief that they taught....is not the point. I understand. But the ACCURACY of their teachings IS. The point is....... that body of knowledge ascribe to them is now being accept as factual and true. I understand that too, but it doesn't mean that it IS actual and true. Plenty of people believe in words ATTRIBUTED to Jesus and Buddha that may indeed be falsified. Do you not agree? That's why it would be important for THEM to clarify their words instead of reading what others have to say OF them. a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. and unless that violence is sanctioned." Your first statement says a person can't be both at the same time while your second statements introduces a special circumstance in which the first statement does not apply so in effect....according to your own statements there is an exception....in sports. In which a person can be both tolerant and violent at the same time - thereby disproving your own assertions. Which means you have contradicted yourself It's a contradiction if I posted it with much of my actual words GONE like YOU just did. Man....you're something else. Adding words that WEREN'T in my original statement. And TAKING AWAY words that were...lol. No wonder you have such an affinity towards the Bible. No a PERSON can't be both violent and tolerant at the same time but a PEOPLE (plural) can. If they truly did not want to go to jail....they would not have done the crime. Again, not necessarily. They may have been indifferent to it. Whatever it is that drove them to commit the crime was more pressing...At that point s/he was will to risk the penalty True. Which is DIFFERENT than the first reason you suggested for them committing the crime. In your first reasoning, you suggest that they committed the crime because they wanted to go to jail...or else they wouldn't have committed it. In your second reasoning, you...more correctly...stated that whatever drove them to commit the crime was more pressing than the penalty for it. This has been the observation when it comes to most criminals. They don't WANT the penalty, but the motivation for the crime was more pressing. So would a judge qualify? I'm not thinking of a scenario where ONE PERSON could qualify for "sanctioned" violence. A judge can "make it legal" for himself to inflict violence on another but the person they're inflicting it on would still NOT agree to it and the community in which this takes place may or may not agree to it also. ALL parties involved with the violence (including the community it's committed in) would have to qualify....not just one. This is what would maintain their "tolerance" as a community. If people are victims of violence against THEIR will...for whatever reason...then that's no longer a TOLERANT community because "intolerable" things are happening in it. We then disagree Come on man, what's new....lol. What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. Yes I understand that part and mentioned it in my question. Again, WHAT VIOLENT ACT did these Buddhists commit? Point out exactly what they were doing that was violent, so that we can continue.

The recent video I saw of government officials welcoming those White South African immigrants and sticking U.S. flags in their hands in a way I haven't seen them do for ANY OTHER immigrants would be an excellent example of why there is "Black Fatigue" in this society. Right under the image they should show a sista sitting with her head resting on her palms to express about how tired she is with the double standards...lol.

ProfD I'm not saying that it shouldn't be illegal; I'm saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime...in my opinion. Even if they got MILLIONS of dollars through deceptive and dishonest means, if nobody personally got killed or harmed by it and in the case of stocks...people may have lost out on some SHARES but generally speaking no individual's financial life was ruined -then why are people being locked up in prison for years over something NON-violent??? The same with writing a bad check. I agree it should be illegal, but do people deserve to be locked up for it? Not in my opinion.

frankster You are not only in denial.....you are delusional LOL..look who's talkng. Mr. Seeing Words That Aren't There. Both My words that are consistent with the use and meaning of Regard So you agree with that statement that you quoted and that I'm referring to about ALL humans being African? No not races.....Variation in human groups/phenotype are based on diet geography climate and culture. Thank you for clarifying. Hence the reason a prefer variation/mutation than defect. Not all mutations are defects... Defects implies maladaptive and harmful Which is one of the reasons I don't consider an Albino...which is a DEFECT...of a different race than their parents. I do say so....and I am not alone If you were to believe Kim Jong Un the leader of North Korea was immortal...you wouldn't be alone either. You'd be INCORRECT...lol...but you wouldn't be alone.

frankster You said malicious thoughts are "always" harmful, I'm still waiting on an answer as to how do you know this to be the case? I do not know them personally but their writings have been recorded. How do you know those recordings are accurate? They dwelt on this planet THOUSANDS of years ago and many people have came in their name FALSELY claiming to represent them and their teachings. Yet you will not rephrase your question....so it is clear you do not want an answer. In this instance, I wasn't asking a question but giving an example. Your answer is contradictory to your statement. How so? If a criminal knowing violates the law....then he tacitly agrees to the punish if caught. That's not necessarily true. Even if they are INDIFFERENT to the punishment, it doesn't mean they agree to it or welcomes it. I've known people who weren't afraid of going to jail if they got caught, but they certainly didn't want to. What about a person in power or having authority can they sanctioned? In this case....."sanctioned violence" means the person issuing AND receiving the violence as well as the community their acting in ALL pretty much agree to it and there is no malice involved. That's why I mentioned SPORTS as an example. If there is any malice involved or if the violence is unwanted by either side or by the society in general....that community is no longer tolerant. The Buddhist example I gave then....based on the argument you have given above then is accurate and true The Buddhists were a people You posted: Ok, before we go further with this....help me out and show me where in this excerpt where it says these Buddhists actually committed acts of violence. It speaks on the IDEA of Buddhist violence at the end of it, but I didn't read any mention of them being violent themselves.

ProfD We should expect them to follow the same rules and laws as applied to the citizens too. Lol...I don't. 1. Whether they SHOULD follow all of the same rules and laws as private citizens is debatable, in my opinion. 2. And even if we agree that they should; with their positions of power and knowledge I don't EXPECT them to follow those rules anyway. The salaries and benefits of public servants in Congress are very generous compared to the average worker. The actual salary of the typical U.S. Congressman is UNDER $200,000 a year. That's not enough money for someone who is charged with managing entire districts worth billions, overseeing and having meetings with billionaires and multi-billion dollar corporations, and meeting with dignitaries from around the planet. Most politicians in Congress are already well-off. If not, they make enough connections while in office to enrich themselves once out of office. I believe the original intention for Congress was for the Representatives to earn their ENTIRE living outside of the government. They were styled to be otherwise ordinary citizens with jobs/businesses outside of Washington who would convene at the Capital only a few times out of the year to make or manage a bare minimum of laws and oversights before going back to their normal gigs. The bottom line is that Congress should not be insider trading. The same crime that gets anyone else prison time. Just ask Martha Stewart. Or perhaps another way to look at it is NOBODY should be going to prison for insider trading whether they're politicians or private citizens. It's not a violent crime. It's almost victimless...so why are people's freedoms being stripped of them and their records being ruined for it????

frankster Thank you we are making progress. I'm not sure if cutting off all roads leaving you no choice BUT to acknowledge the reality of race -should be considered "progress", lol. But atleast you're finally accepting it. What does Regard means : a protective interest Regarded does not mean true or factual beyond a group or person's self interest....curated construct/concept In reality there is no truth that what is referred to as Races has anything in common that is exclusive themselves as regards to human physical traits....Black/African has all human traits - all humans are Africans Are these YOUR words, or are you quoting someone? Because I know it is... So you went from not accepting the idea of race at all, to now "knowing" that different races are a result of defects? Wow..... You would be playing with yourself all day Haven't "played with" myself all day since I was a teenager, lol. Defect is a strong word with negative connotation....Change or Variation is nuetral - But they aren't the same. Defect and change and variation are NOT the same. Having a different VARIATION of an electric razor isn't the same as having a DEFECTIVE one that explodes when you plug it in...lol. A defect in gene expression and or production is a mutation....in this case melanin A defect in a gene can express itself as a mutation but all mutations aren't caused by defective gene expression. That there is One Human Race....genetically and biologically If you say so....

frankster These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. These aren't MALICIOUS thoughts. Find me the word "malicious" in that article you reference from! They are talking about INTRUSIVELY violent thoughts that are unwelcomed and not desired. Not MALICIOUSLY violent thoughts that are intended to be had and desired. Both Buddha and Jesus concurs with the idea that harmful thoughts are dangerous and harmful to the thinker Well if you know them personally then invite them into this discussion so we can read their positions on this matter DIRECTLY rather than a bunch of historical hearsay that may or may not be the actual truth. No....I told you how I interpreted it . And again, I told YOU that you are delusional because you're seeing things that aren't there and it's leading you to the wrong conclusions. I have already dealt with this issue.. If you actually dealt with it, it wouldn't STILL be an issue...lol. There you go answering your own question... Ofcourse....YOU couldn't answer it. I had to answer it FOR you...lol. What do you mean by "sanctioned" in this instant/example? Permitted by all parties involved, including the victims. In other words.... An example of a "sanctioned" type of violence would be sports like boxing or martial arts where everyone involved from the government to the fighters themselves acknowledge and accept the violence that comes with sport. A society can allow that and still be tolerant since all parties agree to it. As opposed to victims of violent crime, or people being convicted of crimes and being violently punished by the government. A society that allows that is NOT tolerant because the victims didn't agree to be violated. The violence was generally forced on them. Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned." How are the following two statements of yours not contradictory? Because the first statement talks about a PERSON. A PERSON can't be both at the same time. However the second statement talks about a person OR people (plural). The "unless it's sanctioned" part refers to PEOPLE (plural), not a person because a person can't sanction themselves...lol.

White South Africans are among the most VICIOUS types of White folks...lol. Like Neely Fuller Jr. pointed out, because they were a minority....they had to use VIOLENCE more than DECEPTION to maintain their rule. Since many White racists in America see the future and know they will be a minority pretty soon, they're trying to learn from White South Africans HOW to rule over a majority of people of color as a minority White population.

True. However we can learn a lesson from White women feminists in this regard..... When it's pointed out that a woman who puts on a g-string bikini and goes jogging down a dark alley late at night and ends up getting raped, it's STILL not her fault because she should have the right to dress and go where she pleases without the fear of being harmed; it's the same with Black men getting hemmed up on these bogus ass sexual assault charges. Straight Black men should be able to express their sexuality freely with whoever CONSENTS to it without fear of prosecution or persecution. If they get caught up....not shame on them for not being more aware...shame on the racist for trying to hem them up! In Puffy's case, I'm not sure how bogus the charges actually are. However the fact that the media is advertising each detail of this trial blow by blow is evident that they're trying to send a message to the public about the sexual proclivity of Black men.

frankster Because I would like to know how it fits in your idea of Races having to do with biology and ancestry.... especially since politician are black white and other... It DOESN'T fit 1 a definition of RACE. But it DOES fit the 4th definition which is now considered archaic: Then what are you saying? Right now I'm not SAYING anything....lol....I'm typing. How do you know it isn't? How do you know it IS? We can play this game all day. After all according to science all human originated out of Africa or from the Black Race But according to them, the racial changes were as a result of MUTATION...not DEFECTION. I may be in error however it is my CURRENT understanding that mutation is caused when NORMAL genes that be recessive for some reason become dominant and that particular trait becomes a dominant trait; where as DEFECTION is when there is something wrong with the gene itself causing a change. Thats not the same as saying....Race is not a social construct No, when you say that you don't accept the idea of races....that covers IT ALL. You didn't make any specifications. I said it is a social construct You say that AFTER the fact that you initially said you didn't accept the idea....period. Humans are 99% the same....in short one cannot distinguish between African/Blacks and Europeans/whites genetically. of that 1% difference....the widest variation is among Africans Yeah? So what does that have to do with race being BIOLOGICAL and GENETIC when you said the dictionary no longer supports that idea?

frankster I have already address the fact there is malicious actions which physically violent..... This is the harm it impose on the individual who thinks malicious thoughts... It's the ACTION that caused the violence, not the thoughts. Again, what HARM does malicious THOUGHTS THEMSELVES do? So to that extent....malicious thoughts are always harmful ALWAYS harmful???? Here you go again with this extremism....lol. How do you know that malicious ANYTHING is "always" harmful? Now you just trying to run away from the discussion....with all this ad hominem. What I said was a fact. You ADDED words to my example that weren't originally there. no its not...a given This line of argument is without merit....I will no longer address this. You can't...lol. It's almost common sense that when somebody says: I'm home but I'm busy ...the mean concurrently UNLESS clearly stated otherwise. A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned.

ProfD Public servants are strictly forbidden from using their offices to enrich themselves. Playing the stock market would definitely be a violation for public servants who have access to that information. Yeah, yeah, yeah.....and "treat your neighbor as yourself" and "if a man slaps you turn the other cheek". These may SOUND like good phrases, put they aren't practiced by most people in reality INCLUDING most politicians. ....and we shouldn't EXPECT them to. We should EXPECT people who get into a job....political or otherwise...to not only fulfil the duties of that job but to also ENRICH themselves in it where at all possible. Politicians aren't priests. They didn't take a vow of poverty. Pay them enough to deter the temptation of theft and misuse of public funds, but at the end of the day....allow them to get as rich as they can as long as it's not the expense of their constituents.

It's actually making the men more cowardly and afraid of face-to-face interaction. I worked on a job some years back where people used to confront eachother by email...lol. You could be working right next to a person everyday but if they had a problem with you and wanted to talk to you about something, they wouldn't say it to your face but send you an email

frankster These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. And from that very same article we read: "It is important to note that Harm OCD does not indicate a risk of carrying out actual physical harm. While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts -- meaning they are contrary to one's own values, beliefs, and sense of self. These intrusive thoughts should not be interpreted as true reflections of someone's internal state or intentions. It is up to qualified mental health professionals to assess potential risks for actual physical harm or suicidal ideation in order to provide appropriate intervention and care.  " https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/harm-ocd-vs-being-dangerous Malicious thoughts are thoughts with the INTENT and;or DESIRE to do harm. This article actually speaks of the opposite! People who DON'T intend to or have the desire to do harm and see these thoughts as unwelcomed and unwanted; intrusive. I do not run in circles Not after smoking that sticky green, you don't...lol. It's hard to raise up off the COUCH after a hit or two of that. Well that is the meaning I got from your use of the word "but" in that context. Which is why I said you were DELUDED earlier. Actually, it's a form of hallucination....to see things that aren't there. You apparently "saw" words in the text that I didn't type. That's bud you be smoking ain't 'NUN to play with....lol. You said "Tolerant but violent"....At no time did I read that as at the same time Because it's a given, for most people.

Or they can....as you mentioned in another threat....learn to FIGHT BACK. There are Black male judges, lawyers, and police officers who COULD use their power to defend other Black men they think are being railroaded by the system.

If we believe the "official narrative". However there are records of B/being flying that go back THOUSANDS of years. Actual paintings of B/beings that fly. And these records are found around the planet, not just in one or 2 countries. If this were not true, how do you explain people around the planet with apparently little to no contact with eachother reporting the same things?

Crooked T Apparently a lot of people like that "out of control" feeling but I didn't. I wanted to be in control of myself at all times. Especially when I'm out in public like at a dance or club. I used to say, "What if a fight broke out and I had to slang them thangs?" You can't really fight when you're very high or very drunk. You THINK you can though.....lol. Like that old Richard Pryor joke "We all know that one nigga who gets drunk every weekend and ends up getting his ass beat. He never wins a fight....but he always WANTS to fight!"