ProfD Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 4 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: But one is more "extreme" than the other. And to say "most" would pretty much be factual while assigning a particular percentage to it may be less accurate. Now, you're on some patriarchal sh8t in suggesting how someone else should *quantify* their statistics. Read 90% as *most* and keep it moving.
Pioneer1 Posted April 12 Author Report Posted April 12 ProfD Now, you're on some patriarchal sh8t in suggesting how someone else should *quantify* their statistics. Read 90% as *most* and keep it moving You can't because it's not the same. As I said, one is more EXTREME than the other. It's one thing to call D.C. "chocolate city" because MOST of it's residents are Black; but to claim 90% of it's residents are Black would be erroneous. As I said before, nobody is arguing that men....whether it's because of reporting and documentation or as an absolute fact...commit more acts of pedo than women. MOST MORE MAJORITY Like Nicky Barnes said in American Gangster -I like THESE terms better than "don't let me catch you" or "I insist"....lol....but they are simple yet accurate. 90% is an extraordinarily high number. When you say "all" or "the vast majority" or "90%", it's more "extreme" and suggests pathology for the group in question. Outside of the act itself being pathological...when you say 90% of a given crime occurs among ANY particular group (in this case being men) it makes THAT GROUP look pathological themselves.
ProfD Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 3 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: You can't because it's not the same. As I said, one is more EXTREME than the other. When you say 90%...that's an extraordinarily high number. It's more "extreme" and suggests pathology for the group in question. Outside of the act itself being pathological...when you say 90% of a given crime occurs among ANY particular group (in this case being men) it makes THAT GROUP look pathological themselves. Well, if it's true...no matter how extreme it might seem or sound, it can be valid and verified. There are many things in which a certain group over-samples. For example, American men own more guns and commit far more crimes than women by huge percentage. If someone quantified it at 90% or higher, very few people would bat an eyelash.
Pioneer1 Posted April 12 Author Report Posted April 12 ProfD Well, if it's true...no matter how extreme it might seem or sound, it can be valid and verified. As I said to Troy "90%" seems too "well rounded" of a figure to be accurate. If you asked a person for an accurate statistic on how many Black men are unemployed in their city and they looked at you with their eyes bucked and lips poked out and said, "Half of them! 50%" Even if you knew the unemployment rate was high, wouldn't you be a little suspicious of THAT figure? Aside from the figure itself....... To assign a number that high makes it look like you're embellishing it instead of being scientific about it. For example, American men own more guns and commit far more crimes than women by huge percentage. If someone quantified it at 90% or higher, very few people would bat an eyelash. If you said American men owned 90% of the gats; although that 90% number is a little too rounded off...I'd be inclined to agree given the almost natural relationship between men and weapons. If you said American men committed 90% of the crime....I'd have the same issue that I have with the pedo accusation. It's an extreme labeling that suggests embellishment. Infact, I wouldn't say that American men commit more OR less crime in general than American women. I really can't say WHO commits the most because men and women often commit DIFFERENT crimes in different ways.
Mel Hopkins Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 15 hours ago, Troy said: But this is really besides the point of our disagreement. I feel that pedophilia is primarily a mental disorder. You think it’s a function of racism so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Stop playing in my face @Troy! Show me where I wrote pedophilia is a function of racism. I wrote that the socially constructed language of Patriarchy is the reason for these mental disorders (whether those disorders are sanctioned by the American Psychiatric Association or not). @ProfDThank you. It feels good to be back! I feel like you all are the brothers who make their sister both vulnerable and tough! @Pioneer1 I uploaded a few of my recent photos and had AI do an illustration for this avatar.
Pioneer1 Posted April 12 Author Report Posted April 12 5 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said: @Pioneer1 I uploaded a few of my recent photos and had AI do an illustration for this avatar. Do you mind if I send it to Senator Cory Booker? I want to check out his response.....lol. Me and @ProfD will settle this debate once and for all as to whether that brutha is "moist" or not.
Troy Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 3 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said: Stop playing in my face @Troy! Show me where I wrote pedophilia is a function of racism. I Yes, you are right. I swear I don’t know where that word racism came from! Just replace the word racism with patriarchy and what I wrote! Back to the topic: Do you believe that people are born with some mental disorders? I believe that the description of certain beliefs and states of mind described as disorders is a function of our culture. And since our current culture is defined by patriarchy, patriarchy determines what is considered a disorder. That is, disorders are relative. People are born gay (as with all things there are environmental impacts that might affect genetic expression, but ignoring that for now) In our lifetime being gay was considered a mental disorder — There was something wrong with you. Today being gay is considered normal. I believe pedophiles are born. sure there might be some trauma that causes some pedophiles to act on their impulses, but I believe those impulses are a function of biology. There’s very little you can do to me to make me wanna have sex with a child or another man. By the same token, there are other men that will jump on any opportunity to do those things. Again. I think these people are born that way. In our patriarchal culture, most men look upon pedophilia with utter distain and revulsion. So how, in heaven sake can patriarchy give rise to pedophilia?
ProfD Posted April 12 Report Posted April 12 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Me and @ProfD will settle this debate once and for all as to whether that brutha is "moist" or not. I didn't realize there was a debate. If sista @Mel Hopkins picture can prove CB isn't KY, that's great.
Pioneer1 Posted April 13 Author Report Posted April 13 ProfD I didn't realize there was a debate. A low key one...lol. You believe the brother is gay, but I'm still on the fence leaning on the side that he's not but just shy and goofy. He could very well be, though.
Mel Hopkins Posted April 13 Report Posted April 13 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But what do you call a society that not only PROSECUTES males more for sexual crimes but also SHAMES males into not reporting being sexually victimized? PATRIARCHY LOL! Weaponized patriarchy is the gift that keeps on giving.
Mel Hopkins Posted April 13 Report Posted April 13 14 hours ago, Troy said: Do you believe that people are born with some mental disorders? No, I don't. The newborn brain operates in theta and delta states. They record their environment, meaning they mimic whatever behaviors they display as they grow. Newborns have two innate responses to their environment that occur without conditioning. Those responses are to loud noises and falling;. So, no. No one is born with a mental disorder (not to be confused with brain damage that disrupts cognitive abilities). By the way, yours is a nature vs. nurture question. While I don't believe we are blank slates, I do believe first caregivers can influence what and how we're programmed.
Pioneer1 Posted April 13 Author Report Posted April 13 Mel Doesn't the emotional and/or intellectual dysfunction often caused BY brain damage or brain chemistry imbalances -fall under the category of mental disorders?
Troy Posted April 13 Report Posted April 13 @Mel Hopkins any parent who has raised more than one child, and has been paying attention, knows they come out the oven with traits that carry on throughout life. Haven't you observed this? I could spot a gay child from a very early age, whose siblings very close in age and in the same household did not exhibit these traits. There are also kids that are antisocial by nature. Again, I'm not saying the environment has no impact--it does. 1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said: By the way, yours is a nature vs. nurture question. While I don't believe we are blank slates, I do believe first caregivers can influence what and how we're programmed. My argument was never nature vs nurture. Sure, environmental factors like caregivers can of course have some impact - but that are not the entire story. I would think this is obvious. We all know the guy who wants his boy to grow up and be the alpha male, captain of the football team, and lady magnet. The guy does everything he can to help his kid along this path, only for the kid to become a rainbow flag waving "power bottom." I believe parents can best serve their children by helping them become the best version of themselves -- the version that is largely preprogrammed at birth, but can manifest in a variety of different ways because of environment. Imagine how much further along our country would be if so many Black geniuses' lives were not squandered picking cotton or languishing in some failed inner-city school. @Mel Hopkins do you people with genius IQs or gifted musically purely the product of environment? That is, you can turn any kid any kid into a Stevie Wonder.
richardmurray Posted April 13 Report Posted April 13 @Pioneer1 On 4/6/2025 at 10:55 AM, Pioneer1 said: I believe the reasons is....even Caucasians know and understand that an egalitarian society where women share the power is inherently BETTER in the long run...and they preserve those societies as ideal. However Sweden and Finland and Norway are very homogeneous and the vast majority of it's citizens are White and so they don't mind allowing their women equal power as long as they know that there are no people (especially men) of color around to pull them away. As Sweden and Denmark begin to bring in more immigrants from the Middle East and Africa....it's going to become more Conservative and the sexism and traditionalism will increase as White men seek more control over their women to keep them from African and Arab men. right, a truly internally variant multiracial populace is by default harder to find a peaceful balance than one where most share most racial labels
Mel Hopkins Posted April 13 Report Posted April 13 4 hours ago, Troy said: any parent who has raised more than one child, and has been paying attention, knows they come out the oven with traits that carry on throughout life. Haven't you observed this? Oddly enough, since those three newborns came directly from my body - I did get a chance. Do you have a challenge staying with the point you've raised? You stated, "BORN with mental disorders." Although "Gay" is not a mental disorder, I've never seen a GAY newborn or ever heard someone state that they thought their newborn was gay. Newborns sleep most of the time, and as noted, they only come with two responses - when they feel like they are falling or when they hear loud noises... Everything, from the time they come out of the womb, they have to be coached to do. Even some have to be plucked to take a breath. Some mothers have to coach their babies to latch on to the nipple to feed. During this time, they also record information from their environment. Think about your earliest memory, which will give you an idea of when you started becoming YOU... Since I engaged with my daughters from day 1 and breastfed them- they became responsive to stimuli quickly. Still, it took them a few weeks to show signs of their unique responses to their environment. So again, the answer to your question is NO; a baby is not born with mental disorders. Mental disorders come as a result of not being able to adjust to their environment. We don't even do intelligence testing earlier than 2 or 3 years because children haven't fully developed their cognitive skills. They are still parrotted by their environment. Maybe at two or three, you can notice some signs of trauma in a child but probably not any earlier than that. 4 hours ago, Troy said: do you people with genius IQs or gifted musically purely the product of environment? That is, you can turn any kid any kid into a Stevie Wonder. Yep! Before I quit META, I saw many examples of parents training their children to do what they could do and even better! I saw three year olds doing 5th grade math, celebrity singers training their children to SANG, and we already know how pro athletes train their children to be pro-athletes. But here's an example: Boyz II Men's Wanya Morris's sons and his daughter singing when they were young!!
frankster Posted April 14 Report Posted April 14 On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Troy but I was still question the 90% figure. I assume you pulled it from a reputable source "90 %" seems a little too "rounded" to be an accurate figure anyway...lol. 87% or even 91% would be more believable if it were anywhere close to that. frankster The difference is Tolerance.... Africans Tolerate Differences and Preserve Variety. -Does that look and sound like "tolerance" of differences, to you? No it does not..... At least three of the 5 or 7 major continents have wars on going today in and on them. The difference as you yourself stated aAfrica has the most Languages and tribes....that means they were allowed to survive and not subsumed by the stronger. That the tolerance I am referencing On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Yes...until proven Your assertations remains unproven as a fact It is an anecdotal and personal observation....which mEANS it could be an isolated incident and or bias interpretation of the observation Don't confuse TRUTH with PROOF. I will try not to....but we are talking about your general characterization as to whether or not it is a fact or an opinion. It remains an opinion until proven as true For it to be a fact is must be true and to be accept as true it must be proven On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: I didn't ask you if providing a study or link was necessary for it to be PROVEN; I asked you is a link or study necessary for it to be TRUE. No a study is not necessary for it to be true... But for us to know if it is true....a study is necessary On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: There's a difference between something being TRUE and it being PROVEN. Yes On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Truth stands alone. Yes On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Proof...depends on the satisfaction of the one you're trying to convince. No.... Proof Is a system design to test the veracity of an idea On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: For example..... I was born in the United States. That's TRUE. Now to PROVE it to YOU and CONVINCE you of this being true....requires more effort. But the TRUTH of my being born here remains, whether you believe it or not. Ya dig? Yes but if you cannot provide your birth papers....I have not reason to accept your words as true On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Lied>>>> Explain to me how I "lied"??? What lie did I just tell?? You said: Even when it comes to observing something as simple as eating a meal together. I notice that Arabs, Asians, Latinos....the men...7 or 8 of them can pile up together and sit at ONE table eating, talking, and spiting over eachother having a GOOD time. No problem. However you rarely see Black men of ANY nationality piling up that close to eachother to eat. What you stated above has not been proven as fact and then you went on to say "Whatever what I'm saying is "rooted" in...it's absolute fact. If it's not fact, name me ONE thing in this discussion I lied about. For it to be a fact it must be studied and proven. "Whatever what I'm saying is "rooted" in...it's absolute fact. So your statement above is a lie....you have not shown where your statments are based in facts On the contrary they are rooted in an observation from which you unilateral draw a conclusion that you believe to be true. On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: No...you have an opinion on what you observed. You do not have enough information to generalize or state that your observation is a fact No, sir. What I actually observed was a FACT. Even if I'm the only one who knows it....it's still a fact. No...its an observation On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Now the CONCLUSION that I could draw from that observation may be an opinion but unless I was drunk or high, that observation remains a fact. It is not a fact but an observation....for it to be a fact it must be tested and proven On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Let me make both of my points in one illustration: If I see a man and woman walking down the block, it's a FACT that I saw them. It may not be a fact to YOU because YOU didn't witness it, but it's a fact to ME. The only way I can make it a fact to YOU is to PROVE it to you that they were doing it. Once I show you cell phone video of it and you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE it...then it's proven and a fact to you. But because I saw it...it's a fact to ME regardless of what you or anybody else thinks. No...you obseving what you think is a man and a woman doing what you think is walking down the street. It could be two men and one is dressed as a woman....did they reveal their sex organs to you? and if the did are the real or fake facsimiles On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said: Now.... That observation of seeing them was an actual FACT. The CONCLUSION of who they were, how they relate to eachother, why they were together...one can speculate all day. That's where the opinions and errors start. But the FACT that they were walking together...for whatever reason...remains. Estas Comprendes Ahora? I understand what you are trying to say but it is inaccurate... There is a famous big foot case of a man claiming to have filmed big foot.....the question that has remained since the film was made public is Is it a bigfoot or a man in a bigfoot suit.....get my drift On 4/12/2025 at 10:14 AM, Pioneer1 said:
Troy Posted April 14 Report Posted April 14 6 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said: Do you have a challenge staying with the point you've raised? You stated, "BORN with mental disorders." Yes, that was what I intended to write. 6 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said: Although "Gay" is not a mental disorder, I've never seen a GAY newborn or ever heard someone state that they thought their newborn was gay. I did not say gay was a mental disorder anymore than I said musical genius was. I was trying to give you examples, of characteristics one is very born with. I did not say you can look at a newborn and tell they’re a genius or gay or athletically on musically talented. Why go to the extreme? all I’m saying is that we are born with these talents or deficiencies. However, they may not begin to present themselves until we are older … obviously. 6 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said: Boyz II Men's Wanya Morris's sons and his daughter singing when they were young!! It is not surprising that a professional singers child can also sing. Again the ability to sing well is an inherited talent. Sure, you can teach some people to sing well enough to carry a tune, but the Mariah Carey’s, Jesse Norman’s Whitney Houston’s. Aretha Franklins… Those people are born. 6 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said: Before I quit META, I saw many examples of parents training their children to do what they could do and even better! I saw three year olds doing 5th grade math, It is a good thing you got off Meta if you stayed there long enough, it’ll have you believing that everybody can have their three-year-olds doing middle school math The data seem to indicate that many fifth graders can’t do fifth grade math. maybe those teachers need to go on Facebook and watch those videos too, huh?
Pioneer1 Posted April 15 Author Report Posted April 15 frankster No it does not..... At least three of the 5 or 7 major continents have wars on going today in and on them. Ok? And what does THIS fact have to do with YOU erroneously claiming that Africans tolerate eachother's differences and live together amicably? The difference as you yourself stated aAfrica has the most Languages and tribes....that means they were allowed to survive and not subsumed by the stronger. You must not know the history of Shaka Zulu and how HE was leading the Zulu people to swallow up the weaker tribes in the area similar to how the Romans did around Europe. Infact, it was the White people who stopped Shaka BECAUSE they knew that if nature took it's course and the stronger Zulu tribe dominated the region and united it under their rule....it wouldn't be long before they rivaled Europe in military might. I will try not to....but we are talking about your general characterization as to whether or not it is a fact or an opinion. It remains an opinion until proven as true I'll agree that FACTS need to be proven, but truth doesn't. Just like a citizen is a citizen whether or not he can VERIFY his citizenship. He may be lying. But if he's NOT lying and IS a citizen, not being able to show proof of this doesn't invalidate that truth. For it to be a fact is must be true and to be accept as true it must be proven I'll agree that a "fact" is an accepted truth. But truth ITSELF doesn't have to be proven in order to still be truth. A fact is more an official "documenting" concept that separates truth information from false information. Truth is beyond that. No a study is not necessary for it to be true... But for us to know if it is true....a study is necessary I'm inclined to agree that this is the case for things that are NOT experienced. Even then, it depends on the subject at hand. You don't need a "study" to determine that the sun is hot or that the moon is a sphere. You can see these truths. Proof Is a system design to test the veracity of an idea Proof is not a "system" Proof is evidence strong enough that it verifies or confirms something to a reasonable audience. The "scientific method" is a system....but not proof itself. Yes but if you cannot provide your birth papers....I have not reason to accept your words as true Correct, you don't. However your doubt or ignorance DOES NOT affect my citizenship. Right? It's TRUE....whether it's an actual "fact" to you or not. What you stated above has not been proven as fact and then you went on to say Well wait a minute..... I was stating what I have seen and what I haven't seen. How can you dispute what ANOTHER person has seen, even if you saw it differently? Even if it was happening in the very same ROOM I was in...if I didn't see it I DIDN'T SEE IT. You can't say what I said was a lie if I really DID NOT see it...despite it being there. For it to be a fact it must be studied and proven. No. It doesn't have to be studied. Proven...I'd agree. But not studied. So your statement above is a lie....you have not shown where your statments are based in facts It's not a lie. You can't call it that out of sheer ignorance. Rather you should admit you simply don't know whether I'm telling the truth or not. Calling it a lie now places the weight on YOU to prove how YOU know what I've seen and what I haven't seen. So how DO you? ((what???)) How do YOU know what my eyes have and haven't seen, that you can sit there and say that I was lying about not seeing African men by themselves piled up at a table over each other eating? How do YOU know that I actually have seen it and have decided to lie and say I haven't? No...you obseving what you think is a man and a woman doing what you think is walking down the street. It could be two men and one is dressed as a woman....did they reveal their sex organs to you? and if the did are the real or fake facsimiles While you make a good point in theory, you're drawing too many conclusions for a reasonable argument of this. If you want to take it there...you could say that about over 90% of the FACTS that are accepted. I say it's a FACT that I'm communicating with you on the internet. But how do I know it's really "frankster" instead of a family member posting instead? We say it's a FACT that Donald Trump is president, but how do we know it's really him and not a clone? If you wanna take it there, what you just said could apply to most things accepted as "fact".
frankster Posted April 16 Report Posted April 16 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster No it does not..... At least three of the 5 or 7 major continents have wars on going today in and on them. Ok? And what does THIS fact have to do with YOU erroneously claiming that Africans tolerate eachother's differences and live together amicably? Yes That doesn't mean they are no wars in Africa.... The Diversity on the continent is testament in and of itself to the Tolerance that exist there. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The difference as you yourself stated aAfrica has the most Languages and tribes....that means they were allowed to survive and not subsumed by the stronger. You must not know the history of Shaka Zulu and how HE was leading the Zulu people to swallow up the weaker tribes in the area similar to how the Romans did around Europe. Infact, it was the White people who stopped Shaka BECAUSE they knew that if nature took it's course and the stronger Zulu tribe dominated the region, it wouldn't be long before they rivaled Europe in military might. Yes...I know of Shaka That is an assumption...i will not argue assumptions that did not happen 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I will try not to....but we are talking about your general characterization as to whether or not it is a fact or an opinion. It remains an opinion until proven as true I'll agree that FACTS need to be proven, but truth doesn't. Just like a citizen is a citizen whether or not he can VERIFY his citizenship. He may be lying. But if he's NOT lying and IS a citizen, not being able to show proof doesn't invalidate this fact. Truth falls in two broad categories....Objective and Subjective or Absolute and Relative In science and law one uses Empirical(objective) truth to discern reality or universal truth Scientists no longer like to use the terms subjective and objective in this contexts as it often becomes problematic. If there is no proof found or he cannot provide proof of citizenship.... He is in fact not a citizen until proven so and will in all regards be treated as a alien 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: For it to be a fact is must be true and to be accept as true it must be proven I'll agree that a "fact" is an accepted truth. But truth ITSELF doesn't have to be proven in order to still be truth. A fact is more an official "documenting" concept that separates truth information from false information. Truth is beyond that. Yes...truth stands on its on veracity - but if only you know the truth then it is personal and subjective(relative) Truth is the reality or how things actually are 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No a study is not necessary for it to be true... But for us to know if it is true....a study is necessary I'm inclined to agree that this is the case for things that are NOT experienced. Even then, it depends on the subject at hand. You don't need a "study" to determine that the sun is hot or that the moon is a sphere. You can see these truths. Even when it is experienced it needs to be studied.... If the sun is hot why when I get closer to it I find snow....like the top of mountains Sometimes when a look at the moon it is a crescent and not round or spherical??? 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Proof Is a system design to test the veracity of an idea Proof is not a "system" Proof is evidence strong enough that it verifies or confirms something to a reasonable audience. The "scientific method" is a system....but not proof itself. How do you prove anything? You must gather evidence and test them.....that is a system 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes but if you cannot provide your birth papers....I have not reason to accept your words as true Correct, you don't. However your doubt or ignorance DOES NOT affect my citizenship. Right? It's TRUE....whether it's an actual "fact" to you or not. Yes....at that point it is a personal relative truth - it is not universal objective or factual 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What you stated above has not been proven as fact and then you went on to say Well wait a minute..... I was stating what I have seen and what I haven't seen. How can you dispute what ANOTHER person has seen, even if you saw it differently? It is called Confirmation Bias....its a human frailty 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Even if it was happening in the very same ROOM I was in...if I didn't see it I DIDN'T SEE IT. You can't say what I said was a lie if I really DID NOT see it...despite it being there. You observed a happening.... You have very little idea as to why it is occuring and what factors are being played out or the context in which it is happening 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: For it to be a fact it must be studied and proven. No. It doesn't have to be studied. Proven...I'd agree. But not studied. Then we will have to disagree... 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: So your statement above is a lie....you have not shown where your statments are based in facts It's not a lie. You can't call it that out of sheer ignorance. Rather you should admit you simply don't know whether I'm telling the truth or not. You said it is based in "Absolute fact".....those facts you have not produce Until you produce those facts...you lied. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Calling it a lie now places the weight on YOU to prove how YOU know what I've seen and what I haven't seen. So how DO you? It is not what you have seen.....it is your conclusion and interpretation 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: ((what???)) How do YOU know what my eyes have and haven't seen, that you can sit there and say that I was lying about not seeing African men by themselves piled up at a table over each other eating? How do YOU know that I actually have seen it and have decided to lie and say I haven't? I am not disputing what you have seen or not seen... @Pioneer1 said However you rarely see Black men of ANY nationality piling up that close to eachother to eat. The "You" represents the general public /AALBC of which I am one....Here you are trying to tell everyone what they have seen or not seen. Since my experience is different to yours....I ask for any studies to back up your assumption 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No...you obseving what you think is a man and a woman doing what you think is walking down the street. It could be two men and one is dressed as a woman....did they reveal their sex organs to you? and if the did are the real or fake facsimiles While you make a good point in theory, you're drawing too many conclusions for a reasonable argument of this. If you want to take it there...you could say that about over 90% of the FACTS that are accepted. I say it's a FACT that I'm communicating with you on the internet. But how do I know it's really "frankster" instead of a family member posting instead? We say it's a FACT that Donald Trump is president, but how do we know it's really him and not a clone? If you wanna take it there, what you just said could apply to most things accepted as "fact". Frankster is fictitious.....it is not my real true or factual name Trump on the other hand is his real name and we have a system of checks....to be asssured it is Donald Trump
umbrarchist Posted April 16 Report Posted April 16 How programmable are children? There is a saying by the Jesuits: "Give me a child until he is SEVEN years old and he is mine for life." How tribal is the culture and how hard does it try to program the kids? Some people are harder to program than others.
Pioneer1 Posted April 16 Author Report Posted April 16 frankster Yes That doesn't mean they are no wars in Africa.... Yes it does. If they tolerate eachother and are amicable towards eachother, then there would BE NO wars. The fact that there are wars cancels out this assertion. The Diversity on the continent is testament in and of itself to the Tolerance that exist there. No, it is not. It's a testament to NATURE and the diversity of NATURE. The BEHAVIOR of human beings is a totally different thing and the fact that these diverse groups fight eachother is a testament to and "proof" of the fact that they DO NOT tolerate eachother. If there is no proof found or he cannot provide proof of citizenship.... He is in fact not a citizen until proven so and will in all regards be treated as a alien No sir, he's STILL a citizen whether he's proven to be or not. I agree that if an authority figure is LOOKING for proof of his citizenship and he can not provide it, then he will NOT be regarded as a citizen. That doesn't mean he's not. It simply means he can not prove that which IS true about him. Again, truth is truth whether it's validated or not. Yes...truth stands on its on veracity - but if only you know the truth then it is personal and subjective(relative) Truth is the reality or how things actually are Correct. Which is why his documentation and proof are irrelevant as far as his actual citizenship goes. Even when it is experienced it needs to be studied.... Not really. ...especially when it's a generally accepted truth. If someone DISPUTES it, then yes...we can do a study on it but other than that, that wouldn't be necessary. If the sun is hot why when I get closer to it I find snow....like the top of mountains Sometimes when a look at the moon it is a crescent and not round or spherical??? Both are irrelevant if the truth about them is known and accepted. Useful knowledge to have...but doesn't affect what we ALREADY know to be truth. How do you prove anything? You must gather evidence and test them.....that is a system Ok. But KNOWING things and PROVING them are different. Unless you're a lawyer....lol...having knowledge is generally more important than being able to prove it to some skeptic standing there with his arms crossed. You observed a happening.... You have very little idea as to why it is occuring and what factors are being played out or the context in which it is happening True. But the TRUTH is....I did observe it happen so it IS true whether I'm able to "prove" it to you or not. It is not what you have seen.....it is your conclusion and interpretation It's more than simply a conclusion, it's also an OBSERVATION. My observation is true, whether I have or can prove it or not. Frankster is fictitious.....it is not my real true or factual name It may not be your real life off-line name but it's your identity. Some would argue that all a "real life" name is is simply an identity. Trump on the other hand is his real name and we have a system of checks....to be asssured it is Donald Trump Are you sure? Some say his actual name is "Drumph" instead of "Trump". They say "Trump" is just an Americanized version of the Germanic "Drumph" of which some of his ancestors hailed from.
frankster Posted April 16 Report Posted April 16 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Yes That doesn't mean they are no wars in Africa.... Yes it does. If they tolerate eachother and are amicable towards eachother, then there would BE NO wars. The fact that there are wars cancels out this assertion. No it does not....the fact that there is diversity on a large scale is evidence of Toleration. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The Diversity on the continent is testament in and of itself to the Tolerance that exist there. No, it is not. It's a testament to NATURE and the diversity of NATURE. The BEHAVIOR of human beings is a totally different thing and the fact that these diverse groups fight eachother is a testament to and "proof" of the fact that they DO NOT tolerate eachother. Yes nature is the creator of the diversity.....Africa being home to the earliest humans and some of the oldest human populations to still also have the most diversity is a testament to Africans toleration and acceptance of differences. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If there is no proof found or he cannot provide proof of citizenship.... He is in fact not a citizen until proven so and will in all regards be treated as a alien No sir, he's STILL a citizen whether he's proven to be or not. I agree that if an authority figure is LOOKING for proof of his citizenship and he can not provide it, then he will NOT be regarded as a citizen. That doesn't mean he's not. It simply means he can not prove that which IS true about him. Again, truth is truth whether it's validated or not. Many innocents have gone to the gallows simply because they could not prove their truths or facts 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes...truth stands on its on veracity - but if only you know the truth then it is personal and subjective(relative) Truth is the reality or how things actually are Correct. Which is why his documentation and proof are irrelevant as far as his actual citizenship goes. No its not...it is very relavant Without proof of citizenship you will not be granted or allow to exercise the rights of citizenship. You may very well be considered an illegal immigrant and end up in deportation proceedings. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Even when it is experienced it needs to be studied.... Not really. ...especially when it's a generally accepted truth. If someone DISPUTES it, then yes...we can do a study on it but other than that, that wouldn't be necessary. Our experiences are individual and personally subjected to biases of Prejudice Perspective and Perception 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If the sun is hot why when I get closer to it I find snow....like the top of mountains Sometimes when a look at the moon it is a crescent and not round or spherical??? Both are irrelevant if the truth about them is known and accepted. Useful knowledge to have...but doesn't affect what we ALREADY know to be truth. We now only know it to be true because the situation was studied. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: How do you prove anything? You must gather evidence and test them.....that is a system Ok. But KNOWING things and PROVING them are different. Unless you're a lawyer....lol...having knowledge is generally more important than being able to prove it to some skeptic standing there with his arms crossed. Yes....Knowing and Proving are different Proving is not only to benefit a sceptic....it can also mean that you know how to use the knowledge 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You observed a happening.... You have very little idea as to why it is occuring and what factors are being played out or the context in which it is happening True. But the TRUTH is....I did observe it happen so it IS true whether I'm able to "prove" it to you or not. That something occurred is true....but what and why is in question 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It is not what you have seen.....it is your conclusion and interpretation It's more than simply a conclusion, it's also an OBSERVATION. My observation is true, whether I have or can prove it or not. My content is not with what you observed but with your conclusion that it is a rarity to be observed in public by the public. That is you speaking for what other people have not seen. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Frankster is fictitious.....it is not my real true or factual name It may not be your real life off-line name but it's your identity. Some would argue that all a "real life" name is is simply an identity. The name and password is useful in order to gain access to this space and exercise my rights as a member....if a cannot provide either I will not be granted access as frankster. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Trump on the other hand is his real name and we have a system of checks....to be asssured it is Donald Trump Are you sure? Some say his actual name is "Drumph" instead of "Trump". They say "Trump" is just an Americanized version of the Germanic "Drumph" of which some of his ancestors hailed from. That maybe true....there are also romurs that in some quarters he is known as Krasnov - I do not know in either case I do know....His legal Name in the US is Trump.
Pioneer1 Posted April 16 Author Report Posted April 16 frankster (I presume....lol) No it does not....the fact that there is diversity on a large scale is evidence of Toleration. Diversity of people LIVING TOGETHER IN PEACE AND HARMONY is evidence of toleration. A diverse group of people fighting and killing eachother for entire generations and centuries is evidence to the CONTRARY. Is Ike and Tina Turner just appearing "together" in a photo evidence enough of a stable and happy marriage? "Bit'....if you don't... HURRY UP and bring yo' ass..." (( high heels clicking and jewelry jangling)) Yes nature is the creator of the diversity.....Africa being home to the earliest humans and some of the oldest human populations to still also have the most diversity is a testament to Africans toleration and acceptance of differences. No sir. They are far too petty and fight eachother over religion and ethnicity way to much for tolerance. Homosexuals aren't tolerated in most African nations (actually any that I'm aware of) either. That doesn't seem like tolerance and acceptance of differences. I'm not religious NOR am I pro-LGBTQIA+ agenda; however the fact that diversity in sexual orientation is not only NOT tolerated but vehemently REJECTED and even in many cases PUNISHED is noteworthy, lol. Many innocents have gone to the gallows simply because they could not prove their truths or facts True. People shouldn't be killed for not being able to prove that they DIDN'T do something. The onus should be on those accusing them OF doing it to provide the proof. No its not...it is very relavant Without proof of citizenship you will not be granted or allow to exercise the rights of citizenship. A person's TREATMENT as a citizen may depend on their ability to prove. But them simply BEING one....in actuality...doesn't. You may very well be considered an illegal immigrant and end up in deportation proceedings. BEING someone and "considered" someone are often different. We now only know it to be true because the situation was studied. Did they discover that the sun was hot BECAUSE they studied the snow on top of mountains? Did they discover that the moon was round BECAUSE they studied how it would crescent and half through out the month? Or were these FACTS discovered by other means OTHER than those studies? Curious minds want to know. Yes....Knowing and Proving are different Proving is not only to benefit a sceptic....it can also mean that you know how to use the knowledge Ok ok ok.....thanks for agreeing with me. That something occurred is true....but what and why is in question Those may be questions for YOU...but the "what" question has already been answer for me by MY observation. The name and password is useful in order to gain access to this space and exercise my rights as a member....if a cannot provide either I will not be granted access as frankster. Never the less, the member known as "frankster" IS your identity. It's your name and identity in the AALBC community. Just like your government name is your identity in the off-line community.
frankster Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster (I presume....lol) No it does not....the fact that there is diversity on a large scale is evidence of Toleration. Diversity of people LIVING TOGETHER IN PEACE AND HARMONY is evidence of toleration. A diverse group of people fighting and killing eachother for entire generations and centuries is evidence to the CONTRARY. Is Ike and Tina Turner just appearing "together" in a photo evidence enough of a stable and happy marriage? "Bit'....if you don't... HURRY UP and bring yo' ass..." (( high heels clicking and jewelry jangling)) According to a study published by the BBC....Europe is the bloodiest Continent having the most wars It looks like Europe and the US are the bloodiest parts of the world. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35685889 https://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes nature is the creator of the diversity.....Africa being home to the earliest humans and some of the oldest human populations to still also have the most diversity is a testament to Africans toleration and acceptance of differences. No sir. They are far too petty and fight eachother over religion and ethnicity way to much for tolerance. Homosexuals aren't tolerated in most African nations (actually any that I'm aware of) either. That doesn't seem like tolerance and acceptance of differences. I'm not religious NOR am I pro-LGBTQIA+ agenda; however the fact that diversity in sexual orientation is not only NOT tolerated but vehemently REJECTED and even in many cases PUNISHED is noteworthy, lol. Of the 7 continents Africa has less wars than Europe Asia and N and S America....thats tolerance in my opinion. In other words Africa is the fifth most violent continent out of seven. so cut the crapola 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Many innocents have gone to the gallows simply because they could not prove their truths or facts True. People shouldn't be killed for not being able to prove that they DIDN'T do something. The onus should be on those accusing them OF doing it to provide the proof. I agree 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No its not...it is very relavant Without proof of citizenship you will not be granted or allow to exercise the rights of citizenship. A person's TREATMENT as a citizen may depend on their ability to prove. But them simply BEING one....in actuality...doesn't. If you want to exercise your full rights and privileges as a citizens then you will need to be able to prove it Everyone born in the US is given a birth certificate and the government record it as a live birth....that is one basic proof of citizenship. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You may very well be considered an illegal immigrant and end up in deportation proceedings. BEING someone and "considered" someone are often different. Yes.... Being is Spiritual Citizenship is political. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: We now only know it to be true because the situation was studied. Did they discover that the sun was hot BECAUSE they studied the snow on top of mountains? Did they discover that the moon was round BECAUSE they studied how it would crescent and half through out the month? Or were these FACTS discovered by other means OTHER than those studies? Curious minds want to know. Some one studied the situation and did experimentations to prove it...answering most scepticism 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes....Knowing and Proving are different Proving is not only to benefit a sceptic....it can also mean that you know how to use the knowledge Ok ok ok.....thanks for agreeing with me. On that I never disagreed with 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That something occurred is true....but what and why is in question Those may be questions for YOU...but the "what" question has already been answer for me by MY observation. You are entitled to your opinion....no matter how wrong it is 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The name and password is useful in order to gain access to this space and exercise my rights as a member....if a cannot provide either I will not be granted access as frankster. Never the less, the member known as "frankster" IS your identity. It's your name and identity in the AALBC community. Yes 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Just like your government name is your identity in the off-line community. Yes....In society
Pioneer1 Posted April 19 Author Report Posted April 19 frankster According to a study published by the BBC....Europe is the bloodiest Continent having the most wars Thanks for that unsolicited information. Now explain to me how what goes on in Europe makes AFRICA a place where differences and diversity are well tolerated and people get along amicably? Of the 7 continents Africa has less wars than Europe Asia and N and S America....thats tolerance in my opinion. 2 points: 1. Oh, so your idea of "tolerance" is just comparing one situation with another more dire situation? So place like North Philly aren't rough or dangerous because what's going on in Gaza is worse and more violent, right? South Central Los Angeles is a nice and peaceful place because it's not nearly as bad as what's happening between Russia and the Ukraine, right? Your idea of "tolerance" is graded on a curve...lol. 2. Besides the unofficial "wars" between drug cartels and gangs going on in Mexico, what wars are or have been going on in North OR South America currently or in the past 50 years? If you want to exercise your full rights and privileges as a citizens then you will need to be able to prove it Everyone born in the US is given a birth certificate and the government record it as a live birth....that is one basic proof of citizenship. Does any of this determine whether or not YOU ARE a citizen???? Some one studied the situation and did experimentations to prove it...answering most scepticism Or perhaps these facts were ALREADY KNOWN to human beings initially. Perhaps, the only reason these facts were lost to much of humanity was through IGNORANCE and MISINFORMATION. People who DIDN'T KNOW these facts gained control over much of the world and begin to train all those under them AWAY from real knowledge and into the lies and superstitious that many people are just now coming out of. The planet being flat for example... Initially we KNEW the planet was round. Caucasians didn't. They thought the world was flat and TAUGHT everyone under their rulership that the world was flat until they learned better.
frankster Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster According to a study published by the BBC....Europe is the bloodiest Continent having the most wars Thanks for that unsolicited information. Now explain to me how what goes on in Europe makes AFRICA a place where differences and diversity are well tolerated and people get along amicably? Of the seven continents Africa is ranked the fifth in terms of war hostilities.....that means they are more tolerant than four. 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Of the 7 continents Africa has less wars than Europe Asia and N and S America....thats tolerance in my opinion. 2 points: 1. Oh, so your idea of "tolerance" is just comparing one situation with another more dire situation? So place like North Philly aren't rough or dangerous because what's going on in Gaza is worse and more violent, right? South Central Los Angeles is a nice and peaceful place because it's not nearly as bad as what's happening between Russia and the Ukraine, right? Your idea of "tolerance" is graded on a curve...lol. 2. Besides the unofficial "wars" between drug cartels and gangs going on in Mexico, what wars are or have been going on in North OR South America currently or in the past 50 years? Yes .....Gaza and the Ukraine are significantly more dangerous than South Central LA and North Philly. Contra Farc ELN and the Mapuche War.. 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If you want to exercise your full rights and privileges as a citizens then you will need to be able to prove it Everyone born in the US is given a birth certificate and the government record it as a live birth....that is one basic proof of citizenship. Does any of this determine whether or not YOU ARE a citizen???? Proof of Citizenship or birth papers are the ultimate determinants of citizenship. 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Some one studied the situation and did experimentations to prove it...answering most scepticism Or perhaps these facts were ALREADY KNOWN to human beings initially. Perhaps, the only reason these facts were lost to much of humanity was through IGNORANCE and MISINFORMATION. People who DIDN'T KNOW these facts gained control over much of the world and begin to train all those under them AWAY from real knowledge and into the lies and superstitious that many people are just now coming out of. The planet being flat for example... Initially we KNEW the planet was round. Caucasians didn't. They thought the world was flat and TAUGHT everyone under their rulership that the world was flat until they learned better. That may be so... How did we come to "ALREADY KNOWN" or "initally we KNEW"?
Pioneer1 Posted April 20 Author Report Posted April 20 frankster Of the seven continents Africa is ranked the fifth in terms of war hostilities.....that means they are more tolerant than four. Or less IN-tolerant....depending on how you look at it. But I believe I asked you WHAT wars are going on in North or South America that makes them more violent than the conflicts and wars going on in Africa right now? Yes .....Gaza and the Ukraine are significantly more dangerous than South Central LA and North Philly. I agree. But that doesn't make South Central or North Philly NOT dangerous. The Reality of one doesn't CHANGE the Reality of another. Proof of Citizenship or birth papers are the ultimate determinants of citizenship. False Again, proof doesn't determine Actuality. That may be so... How did we come to "ALREADY KNOWN" or "initally we KNEW"? Perhaps because HE Who CREATED them told us early on.
frankster Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Of the seven continents Africa is ranked the fifth in terms of war hostilities.....that means they are more tolerant than four. Or less IN-tolerant....depending on how you look at it. But I believe I asked you WHAT wars are going on in North or South America that makes them more violent than the conflicts and wars going on in Africa right now? Same difference.. I did mention them.....ELN etc... I did not say they are more violent....just that they are more conflicts battles and wars in S. America than in Africa. Wars by its Nature are violent. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes .....Gaza and the Ukraine are significantly more dangerous than South Central LA and North Philly. I agree. But that doesn't make South Central or North Philly NOT dangerous. The Reality of one doesn't CHANGE the Reality of another. Thank you... You are immensely more in dangerous in Gaza and Ukraine than in South central and North Philly... In reality Danger can be experienced almost Every Where.... It is also a reality than some places danger is likely to be experience more often.... than others 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Proof of Citizenship or birth papers are the ultimate determinants of citizenship. False Again, proof doesn't determine Actuality. What determines Actuality?? 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That may be so... How did we come to "ALREADY KNOWN" or "initally we KNEW"? Perhaps because HE Who CREATED them told us early on. Surprisingly we agree....maybe not for the same reasons - or how we arrive at it. For me the Creator is Nature....And thru the Study of Nature we Understand these things. That is one way Nature Speaks to Us...as we study Nature - Nature reveals Itself.
Pioneer1 Posted April 21 Author Report Posted April 21 frankster Same difference.. It ain't the "same difference" man...lol. Less violent isn't the same as TOLERANT and AMICABLE, any more than less than 2 months pregnant with no "baby bump" showing, is the same as NOT pregnant at all. I did not say they are more violent....just that they are more conflicts battles and wars in S. America than in Africa. Help a brutha out.... What war is going on in South America? What determines Actuality?? It's current state of "being". If it BE/IS now...it's actual. Surprisingly we agree....maybe not for the same reasons - or Listen, as long as we agree...I'll take THAT, lol. Who care what roads we took, as long as we arrived at the same destination.
frankster Posted April 23 Report Posted April 23 On 4/21/2025 at 7:13 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster Same difference.. It ain't the "same difference" man...lol. Less violent isn't the same as TOLERANT and AMICABLE, any more than less than 2 months pregnant with no "baby bump" showing, is the same as NOT pregnant at all. OI see no real difference between one being less intolerant and the other being more tolerant....this is splitting hairs. On 4/21/2025 at 7:13 PM, Pioneer1 said: I did not say they are more violent....just that they are more conflicts battles and wars in S. America than in Africa. Help a brutha out.... What war is going on in South America? Its not only about current wars....to show levels of intolerance a history of wars is also necessary - and the article states that Africa is #5 among the 7 continents. The Mapuche wars in Chile.. The Farc/ELN wars in Columbia... Chiapas conflict in Mexico.... On 4/21/2025 at 7:13 PM, Pioneer1 said: What determines Actuality?? It's current state of "being". If it BE/IS now...it's actual. What is the current state of affairs.....you cannt prove citizenship. If you cannot prove that you are a citizen in actuality you will be treated as alien....until proof is provided On 4/21/2025 at 7:13 PM, Pioneer1 said: Surprisingly we agree....maybe not for the same reasons - or Listen, as long as we agree...I'll take THAT, lol. Who care what roads we took, as long as we arrived at the same destination. fine by me
Pioneer1 Posted April 23 Author Report Posted April 23 frankster OI see no real difference between one being less intolerant and the other being more tolerant....this is splitting hairs. No, it's not about splitting hairs but about telling the truth. Either Africa is a place of tolerance or it's not. If there's war and religious/political persecution going on around the continent...then it's NOT a place of tolerance where differences are welcomed and the people get along amicably as you claim. Its not only about current wars....to show levels of intolerance a history of wars is also necessary - and the article states that Africa is #5 among the 7 continents. The Mapuche wars in Chile.. The Farc/ELN wars in Columbia... Chiapas conflict in Mexico.... See, now you're reaching....as I knew you would. Unlike Africa with SEVERAL military conflicts going on around the continent...you can't say that about South America unless you dig down deep into the past. Just admit you were in error comparing Africa with South America, and move on....lol. What is the current state of affairs.....you cannt prove citizenship. You can ABSOLUTELY prove citizenship in most cases. Not in all, but in most. If you cannot prove that you are a citizen in actuality you will be treated as alien....until proof is provided. Again, just because you're not TREATED like a citizen doesn't mean you're NOT a citizen. Going by your logic...if a person isn't TREATED like a human being, does that mean they're NOT a human being?????
frankster Posted April 24 Report Posted April 24 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster OI see no real difference between one being less intolerant and the other being more tolerant....this is splitting hairs. No, it's not about splitting hairs but about telling the truth. Either Africa is a place of tolerance or it's not. In comparison to other continents and their history....it is tolerant 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If there's war and religious/political persecution going on around the continent...then it's NOT a place of tolerance where differences are welcomed and the people get along amicably as you claim. I never said there was no wars in Africa.....more amicably than most other places in the world thoughtout history 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Its not only about current wars....to show levels of intolerance a history of wars is also necessary - and the article states that Africa is #5 among the 7 continents. The Mapuche wars in Chile.. The Farc/ELN wars in Columbia... Chiapas conflict in Mexico.... See, now you're reaching....as I knew you would. Unlike Africa with SEVERAL military conflicts going on around the continent...you can't say that about South America unless you dig down deep into the past. Just admit you were in error comparing Africa with South America, and move on....lol. I am speaking from a historical perspective and the sum of wars which the study confirmed....that African ranks fifth in amount of wars through out history. The three wars above in South America is current and ongoing 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What is the current state of affairs.....you cannt prove citizenship. You can ABSOLUTELY prove citizenship in most cases. Not in all, but in most. Well until you do....you are in actuality not going to be considered or treated as a citizen 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If you cannot prove that you are a citizen in actuality you will be treated as alien....until proof is provided. Again, just because you're not TREATED like a citizen doesn't mean you're NOT a citizen. Going by your logic...if a person isn't TREATED like a human being, does that mean they're NOT a human being????? It means you cannot prove your citizenship....so you are not treated as a citizens If you are accused and suspected of a crime.....and you cannot proven your innocence - you will be treated as a criminal. Does that make you a criminal....ask all those innocents locked up in prisons Citizenship is political.... Human beings are biological and as such is self evident...That can easily be proven to a point beyond a reasonable doubt - often your presence will suffice. Politically you can be deem subhuman(3/5th of a man) and treated accordingly by being denied your Humanity and Human Rights. If how ever you or the people examining you can not prove you are a human being.....chances are you are not a human being
Pioneer1 Posted April 25 Author Report Posted April 25 frankster In comparison to other continents and their history....it is tolerant Man, there are DOZENS of military conflicts going on in Africa right now as we speak. People are being killed over religious and ethnic differences. Those conflicts you listed from South America were a STRECH, and you know it....lol. How many military conflicts are taking place in the Continent of North America? How many military conflicts are taking place in the Continent of Australia? Just let it go bro........ I never said there was no wars in Africa.....more amicably than most other places in the world thoughtout history No but you: 1. Compared them with other continents and declared it to be more peaceful and tolerant when it indeed IS NOT 2. You claimed that differences are tolerated and people get along amicably....when in many cases they DO NOT and they actually fight and kill eachother. If you are accused and suspected of a crime.....and you cannot proven your innocence - you will be treated as a criminal. It depends on the country. In the United States...in theory...you are PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. If how ever you or the people examining you can not prove you are a human being.....chances are you are not a human being One problem with that logic is...perhaps the people doing the examining DON'T WANT to prove that you are human. They may have an interest in DENYING your humanity.
frankster Posted April 28 Report Posted April 28 On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster In comparison to other continents and their history....it is tolerant Man, there are DOZENS of military conflicts going on in Africa right now as we speak. There is more in Asia On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: People are being killed over religious and ethnic differences. Those conflicts you listed from South America were a STRECH, and you know it....lol. They are real currently on going and true... You want to run around the place maligning black and giving everybody else a pass and excuse On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: How many military conflicts are taking place in the Continent of North America? North America exports its intolerance.....currently I think they are involve in about 15 wars On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: How many military conflicts are taking place in the Continent of Australia? They are ranked no. 6th out of 7 continents in terms of wars Just let it go bro........ I am not the only one stating these facts....a study was done and that was the conclusion...of all the continents historicall Africa is the Fifth in the amount of wars. So No I will not be letting it go....while you are going around castings aspersions against Africans On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: I never said there was no wars in Africa.....more amicably than most other places in the world thoughtout history No but you: 1. Compared them with other continents and declared it to be more peaceful and tolerant when it indeed IS NOT Historically it is....bring your facts and or links On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: 2. You claimed that differences are tolerated and people get along amicably....when in many cases they DO NOT and they actually fight and kill eachother. No true.. Where is your evidence? On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: If you are accused and suspected of a crime.....and you cannot proven your innocence - you will be treated as a criminal. It depends on the country. In the United States...in theory...you are PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. In theory....what about in real life Tell that to all the innocent black people in prison and all the victims of stop and frisk On 4/24/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pioneer1 said: If how ever you or the people examining you can not prove you are a human being.....chances are you are not a human being One problem with that logic is...perhaps the people doing the examining DON'T WANT to prove that you are human. They may have an interest in DENYING your humanity. In that case you doomed... Like Sarah Baartman and Ota Benga
Pioneer1 Posted April 28 Author Report Posted April 28 frankster There is more in Asia Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, but Ted Bundy killed MORE. They're BOTH serial killers, so what's YOUR point???? You want to run around the place maligning black and giving everybody else a pass and excuse If that's what I WANTED to do, I could have brought up the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and that would have shut you up and ended the discussion. They are ranked no. 6th out of 7 continents in terms of wars Australia is mostly White though...lol. Are you telling me these gruffy White folks who are descended from English criminals are less warlike than Africans??? SAY it ain't so...lol. Historically it is....bring your facts and or links "Historically" my ass...we're talking about the here and now. Where is your evidence? Oh, you need "evidence" that there is fighting and killing going on in Africa? Ok: In theory....what about in real life You already know, which is why I drew that distinction.
Delano Posted April 29 Report Posted April 29 From the personal to the national.Every group is a tribe.
aka Contrarian Posted April 29 Report Posted April 29 @Delano. Hi guy. We haven't conversed in a while. I'm still dangling in the limbo of my paranormal void. This thing called Life continues to mystify me. Gotta birthday coming up in August. Wonder if I'll make it or will I be - set free. Not only do I sense your serenity but I admire it.
Delano Posted April 29 Report Posted April 29 Thank you @aka Contrarian It seems that the decades of practicing Astrology has had an effect. I can feel people móod and I seem to be more magnetic. You are already free. 2
frankster Posted April 30 Report Posted April 30 On 4/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster There is more in Asia Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, but Ted Bundy killed MORE. They're BOTH serial killers, so what's YOUR point???? If that is what we are speaking about then every continent has wars... My Point is to refute your implications... When it comes to violence and intolerance.....Africa historical is Fifth out of Seven - and currently Asia has more wars than Africa On 4/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Pioneer1 said: You want to run around the place maligning black and giving everybody else a pass and excuse If that's what I WANTED to do, I could have brought up the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and that would have shut you up and ended the discussion. I can list Genocides that happen in other continents.... Africa is not the only Continent that experience Genocide. On 4/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Pioneer1 said: They are ranked no. 6th out of 7 continents in terms of wars Australia is mostly White though...lol. Are you telling me these gruffy White folks who are descended from English criminals are less warlike than Africans??? SAY it ain't so...lol. Yes....so says the study On 4/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Pioneer1 said: Historically it is....bring your facts and or links "Historically" my ass...we're talking about the here and now. Right Now Africa would in my opinion be ranked number 3 0r 4 On 4/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Pioneer1 said: Where is your evidence? Oh, you need "evidence" that there is fighting and killing going on in Africa? Ok: There is fighting and killings going on in at least 5 or 6 of the 7 continents... Whats your point???? On 4/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Pioneer1 said: In theory....what about in real life You already know, which is why I drew that distinction. I already know what?? On 4/28/2025 at 8:18 PM, Delano said: From the personal to the national.Every group is a tribe. Yes because....the english language is a living language in which words usage and meaning tend to change.
Pioneer1 Posted May 1 Author Report Posted May 1 On 4/29/2025 at 2:39 PM, aka Contrarian said: @Delano. Hi guy. We haven't conversed in a while. Yall don't converse much even when both of you're on here posting at the same time...lol. I notice that.
Pioneer1 Posted May 1 Author Report Posted May 1 frankster If that is what we are speaking about then every continent has wars... But that's not what we're speaking about. We're speaking about whether or not Africa is a continent of tolerance where differences are accepted and different ethnic groups get along amicably as you claim. Clearly...they do not. My Point is to refute your implications... And WHAT are my "implications"???? When it comes to violence and intolerance.....Africa historical is Fifth out of Seven - and currently Asia has more wars than Africa So? Does having LESS violence mean it's a place of peace and tolerance? Does killing LESS people than the next man means a person is NOT a killer? I can list Genocides that happen in other continents.... Africa is not the only Continent that experience Genocide. Ok? Again, because other continents experience this does that make Africa a continent of peace and tolerance? Because THAT'S the message you've been TRYING to convey for weeks now. There is fighting and killings going on in at least 5 or 6 of the 7 continents... Whats your point???? My point is that you're WRONG. Africa is NOT a place where differences are well tolerated and people get along with eachother amicably. I already know what?? Right now, you already know you've lost the argument so now you're trying to muddy it up and cause confusion...lol. 1
frankster Posted May 1 Report Posted May 1 37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster If that is what we are speaking about then every continent has wars... But that's not what we're speaking about. We're speaking about whether or not Africa is a continent of tolerance where differences are accepted and different ethnic groups get along amicably as you claim. Clearly...they do not. They do so more than in the other four continents....historically Today Africa is less violent that ....than three other continents 37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: My Point is to refute your implications... And WHAT are my "implications"???? That Africa and Africans are more violent than most other people 37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: When it comes to violence and intolerance.....Africa historical is Fifth out of Seven - and currently Asia has more wars than Africa So? Does having LESS violence mean it's a place of peace and tolerance? Does killing LESS people than the next man means a person is NOT a killer? Yes if one is comparing levels of violence on a continental scale. 37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I can list Genocides that happen in other continents.... Africa is not the only Continent that experience Genocide. Ok? Again, because other continents experience this does that make Africa a continent of peace and tolerance? Because THAT'S the message you've been TRYING to convey for weeks now. Comparatively it does. No...that is not the message I ahve been trying to convey - that is the message you got 37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: There is fighting and killings going on in at least 5 or 6 of the 7 continents... Whats your point???? My point is that you're WRONG. Africa is NOT a place where differences are well tolerated and people get along with eachother amicably. More so than in many other places and continents hence - the reason there is so many languages and ethnic groups there 37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I already know what?? Right now, you already know you've lost the argument so now you're trying to muddy it up and cause confusion...lol How can that be when you have not provided any studies to back your claims...
Pioneer1 Posted May 1 Author Report Posted May 1 frankster They do so more than in the other four continents....historically Today Africa is less violent that ....than three other continents "less violent" does NOT = "non violent" or "tolerant" That math doesn't add up...lol. That Africa and Africans are more violent than most other people Where did I EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY say that? Yes if one is comparing levels of violence on a continental scale. ...and apparently YOU are that "one" doing it, not me. You made a statement claiming that Africa is a place of tolerance where different groups get along amicably. Initially you didn't make a statement of COMPARISON to other continents but an assertion about Africa by itself; that was FALSE. More so than in many other places and continents hence - the reason there is so many languages and ethnic groups there WHAT is the reason there are so many languages and ethnic groups there? How can that be when you have not provided any studies to back your claims... We'll put how Christians are treated in Islamic territory and how Muslims are treated in Christian territory aside. We'll put how homosexuals (whether we see it as right or wrong, it IS a "difference" among humans that can either be tolerated or not tolerated) are treated aside. We'll put the genocide in Rwanda and how ethnic groups around the country are treated aside. We'll put how Arabs in North Africa treat Black Africans aside. 1. We BOTH acknowledge that there is a history of wars in Africa. 2. I provided a video of a current long running war in the Congo. Are you telling me this is NOT enough proof for you that Africa IS NOT and HAS NOT been a place of tolerance where different people get along amicably???? Again, you've been proven wrong; but instead of accepting this, you're ATTEMPTING to CHANGE the argument from whether or not Africa is a place of tolerance where different groups get along amicably.....to how violent they are IN COMPARISON to other continents. You can walk down THAT path by yourself, I've made my case.
frankster Posted May 2 Report Posted May 2 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster They do so more than in the other four continents....historically Today Africa is less violent that ....than three other continents "less violent" does NOT = "non violent" or "tolerant" That math doesn't add up...lol. Yes that is truth it does not mean non-violent but it does mean more tolerant Less violent mean they are other more violent people or places. 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That Africa and Africans are more violent than most other people Where did I EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY say that? Here is two Quote: "To be clear, when I speak of Black folks being tribal, I mean "tribal" as in grouping up for malicious purposes simply to oppose another Black person." "however I'm not talking about humans in general but Black people in specific and it seems as if we tend to be very divided and often times SEEK division and separation from eachother more so than most other groups." 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes if one is comparing levels of violence on a continental scale. ...and apparently YOU are that "one" doing it, not me. You made a statement claiming that Africa is a place of tolerance where different groups get along amicably. Initially you didn't make a statement of COMPARISON to other continents but an assertion about Africa by itself; that was FALSE. Copy and paste the entire statement or response? 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: More so than in many other places and continents hence - the reason there is so many languages and ethnic groups there WHAT is the reason there are so many languages and ethnic groups there? They are many reasons...... The one I think is most relevant is that Africans do not Annihilate or obliterate their enemies and their culteres on the scale that most other continental peoples do. 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: How can that be when you have not provided any studies to back your claims... We'll put how Christians are treated in Islamic territory and how Muslims are treated in Christian territory aside. We'll put how homosexuals (whether we see it as right or wrong, it IS a "difference" among humans that can either be tolerated or not tolerated) are treated aside. We'll put the genocide in Rwanda and how ethnic groups around the country are treated aside. We'll put how Arabs in North Africa treat Black Africans aside. 1. We BOTH acknowledge that there is a history of wars in Africa. 2. I provided a video of a current long running war in the Congo. Are you telling me this is NOT enough proof for you that Africa IS NOT and HAS NOT been a place of tolerance where different people get along amicably???? Historically it has been more tolerant than most other continental peoples.... 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Again, you've been proven wrong; but instead of accepting this, you're ATTEMPTING to CHANGE the argument from whether or not Africa is a place of tolerance where different groups get along amicably.....to how violent they are IN COMPARISON to other continents. You can walk down THAT path by yourself, I've made my case. Suit yourself. I have been taking a Historical and Comparative stand on this issue....and provided a study as evidence. While you have taken the racist position of highlighting Africa's Negative....out of proportion. Its not your fault though...the blame is on racist propagandist mass media - which you have thoughtlessly consume hook line and sinker I still love you and will continue to try and dissuade and deconstruction your brainwashing.
Pioneer1 Posted May 3 Author Report Posted May 3 frankster Yes that is truth it does not mean non-violent but it does mean more tolerant Less violent mean they are other more violent people or places. Thank you for acknowledging the obvious. Here is two Quote: "To be clear, when I speak of Black folks being tribal, I mean "tribal" as in grouping up for malicious purposes simply to oppose another Black person." "however I'm not talking about humans in general but Black people in specific and it seems as if we tend to be very divided and often times SEEK division and separation from eachother more so than most other groups."" I didn't even SEE the word "violent" up there in my quotes. I mentioned how divisive we are and how we often oppose eachother which most Black leaders have observed over the years. In the clip you provided in the other thread, Malcolm X asks the Black audience "who taught you to hate yourself?". Would you accuse Malcolm of implicitly calling Black people more violent because of his statement on self hatred? I'm going to ask you again, Where did I EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY say that Africa or Africans were more violent than other people? Copy and paste the entire statement or response? Quote That diversity is a result of people accepting differences among themselves and remaining amicable towards each other Quote The difference is Tolerance.... Africans Tolerate Differences and Preserve Variety. Both quotes can be found on page 1 of this thread. While you have taken the racist position of highlighting Africa's Negative....out of proportion. No. Just highlighting enough to prove you wrong, lol.
frankster Posted May 3 Report Posted May 3 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Yes that is truth it does not mean non-violent but it does mean more tolerant Less violent mean they are other more violent people or places. Thank you for acknowledging the obvious. At no time did I claim Africans are Non-violent.... Tolerant.....accepting condoning or Allowing differences. 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Here is two Quote: "To be clear, when I speak of Black folks being tribal, I mean "tribal" as in grouping up for malicious purposes simply to oppose another Black person." "however I'm not talking about humans in general but Black people in specific and it seems as if we tend to be very divided and often times SEEK division and separation from eachother more so than most other groups."" I didn't even SEE the word "violent" up there in my quotes. I mentioned how divisive we are and how we often oppose eachother which most Black leaders have observed over the years. Do not leave out "malicious"....doing or intending to cause harm - injury To do or cause harm is violence Try as you might you can run...but you cannot hide from the truth 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: In the clip you provided in the other thread, Malcolm X asks the Black audience "who taught you to hate yourself?". Would you accuse Malcolm of implicitly calling Black people more violent because of his statement on self hatred? No.... Its a rhetorical question....meant to stimulate thought - not an accusation On who is propagating promoting and spreading self-hate among black people 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: I'm going to ask you again, Where did I EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY say that Africa or Africans were more violent than other people? Already did that....see above 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Copy and paste the entire statement or response? Both quotes can be found on page 1 of this thread. typical....no evidence to corroborate your claims 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: While you have taken the racist position of highlighting Africa's Negative....out of proportion. No. Just highlighting enough to prove you wrong, lol. Which you have failed miserably to accomplish
Pioneer1 Posted May 4 Author Report Posted May 4 frankster At no time did I claim Africans are Non-violent.... Tolerant.....accepting condoning or Allowing differences. But you DID claim they are tolerant. Being non-violent is a CHARACTERISTIC of being tolerant. Can someone be "tolerant" and practice violence at the same time? Do not leave out "malicious"....doing or intending to cause harm - injury Malicious means ill intent, not necessarily violent. To do or cause harm is violence Not necessarily. Violence is PHYSICAL in nature. You could harm someone verbally, financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc.... If someone HARMS your reputation, that's not an act of violence. Try as you might you can run...but you cannot hide from the truth The TRUTH is...I never said that Africans were more violent than others. That's just a strawman argument you generated and decided to focus on because you couldn't defend your "tolerant Africa" claim. No.... Its a rhetorical question....meant to stimulate thought - not an accusation Yet he DOES accuse the Black people of the audience of hating their features and hating themselves to the point they don't want to be around eachother. But you don't accuse Malcolm X of implying that Black folks are more violent because they hate themselves and don't want to be around eachother, because you understand the point he's making. But when I point out the fact that Black folks aren't as united as others and tend to be divided in a more malicious way.....a problem that Black leaders since Marcus Garvey have pointed out....you want to use THAT as an excuse to build up a strawman argument that I'm being racist against Africans and trying to portray them as more violent. Which you have failed miserably to accomplish I've done it numerous times, you just refuse to accept it. Instead, you seek to change the focus of the subject. I can say water is wet...and you can argue that it's actually dry. Who can stop you from NOT acknowledging the truth and that you've been proven wrong? You just refuse to do it because you can.
ProfD Posted May 4 Report Posted May 4 Always enjoy the back and forth between @frankster and @Pioneer1. IMO, white folks have a monopoly on violence as evidenced by their control of the planet. Sure, Black folks hurt, harm and kill each other in all manners of violence from drive-by shootings, executions, coups, genocides, etc. To date, no Black country has emerged as a super power or threat to racism white supremacy. to that end, Black folks aren't nearly as violent as white folks who have either directly or indirectly killed 100s of millions of people within the past 500 years and counting. The Ukraine-Russia conflict has cost over a million lives within a 3 year period. Black folks killings combined throughout the planet pale in comparison. 1
frankster Posted May 4 Report Posted May 4 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster At no time did I claim Africans are Non-violent.... Tolerant.....accepting condoning or Allowing differences. But you DID claim they are tolerant. Yes 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Being non-violent is a CHARACTERISTIC of being tolerant. No.... Tolerance is a CHARACTERISTIC of non-violence Tolerance is not Non-violent 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Can someone be "tolerant" and practice violence at the same time? Yes... 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Do not leave out "malicious"....doing or intending to cause harm - injury Malicious means ill intent, not necessarily violent. Malicious means to have cause harm or to intent to cause harm.. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: To do or cause harm is violence Not necessarily. Violence is PHYSICAL in nature. You could harm someone verbally, financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc.... Violence can be expressed a variety of forms.....primarily Physical Psychological Verbal Emotional Personal(reputation) Financial etc Harm is to cause physical damage or injury. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If someone HARMS your reputation, that's not an act of violence. It is not considered physical violence....however it can be consider emotional financial and Personal Violence - causing damage and injury. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Try as you might you can run...but you cannot hide from the truth The TRUTH is...I never said that Africans were more violent than others. That's just a strawman argument you generated and decided to focus on because you couldn't defend your "tolerant Africa" claim. How Republican of you......rewriting an obvious truth with falsity whilst the truth is still evident. You may not have used the word violent....instead in the proof above you used the word - malicious the meaning is clear. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No.... Its a rhetorical question....meant to stimulate thought - not an accusation Yet he DOES accuse the Black people of the audience of hating their features and hating themselves to the point they don't want to be around eachother. But you don't accuse Malcolm X of implying that Black folks are more violent because they hate themselves and don't want to be around eachother, because you understand the point he's making. Malcolm is not accusing....he is asking? - big difference. Malcolm already accept that fact....that many black people grew up hating themselves and the situation they are in... Malcolm was placing attention on the cause and root of this self hate. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But when I point out the fact that Black folks aren't as united as others and tend to be divided in a more malicious way.....a problem that Black leaders since Marcus Garvey have pointed out....you want to use THAT as an excuse to build up a strawman argument that I'm being racist against Africans and trying to portray them as more violent. Please provide the quote from Garvey that supports your assertions... 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Which you have failed miserably to accomplish I've done it numerous times, you just refuse to accept it. Instead, you seek to change the focus of the subject. I can say water is wet...and you can argue that it's actually dry. Who can stop you from NOT acknowledging the truth and that you've been proven wrong? You just refuse to do it because you can. If you are going to practice this level of denial...then in future our dialogue will be ones of an exchange of opinions - with no regards to facts and truths.
Pioneer1 Posted May 4 Author Report Posted May 4 3 hours ago, ProfD said: Always enjoy the back and forth between @frankster and @Pioneer1. Yeah??? Well help yourself................. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now