We're a credit to our race (and theirs)

[andymarksman]

You were very active on 12-15-2014, the so called "White Defense Day." Hardly to believe it's a mere coincidence, correct?

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1248368

[Wheretonow]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

You were very active on 12-15-2014, the so called "White Defense Day." Hardly to believe it's a mere coincidence, correct?

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1248368

I'm very active every day. Go find another conspiracy to waste your time on.

[andymarksman]

You are shrewd enough to obfuscate your true intention with issues like welfare reforms and affirmative actions. But these issues have been beaten to death by various "white nationalist groups." By bringing them up and racializing them after your racially charged tribute, one has to suspect your motive may not be as innocent as you would like to portray, right?

And you know very well my allegation is not entirely baseless for all these "white nationalist groups" and their websites have quite a following among the discharged/retired military personnel, and active ones....

[Wheretonow]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

You are shrewd enough to obfuscate your true intention with issues like welfare reforms and affirmative actions. But these issues have been beaten to death by various "white nationalist groups." By bringing them up and racializing them after your racially charged tribute, one has to suspect your motive may not be as innocent as you would like to portray, right?

And you know very well my allegation is not entirely baseless for all these "white nationalist groups" and their websites have quite a following among the discharged/retired military personnel, and active ones....

I love it when pretend clairvoyants like you try to ascribe intentions to people who you know nothing about. It would be mildly entertaining to diagram all of the logical fallacies your statement commits, but I'm not interested enough to do it. But if you are, here's a start:

Anecdotal fallacy - using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case)
Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of the conditions.
Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.
Existential fallacy – an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.

Merry Christmas

[theboss21422]

Originally Posted by Wheretonow

"The ratification came eight months after the end of the war, but it represented the culmination of the struggle against slavery. When the war began, some in the North were against fighting what they saw as a crusade to end slavery. Although many northern Democrats and conservative Republicans were opposed to slavery's expansion, they were ambivalent about outlawing the institution entirely. The war's escalation after the First Battle of Bull Run, Virginia, in July 1861 caused many to rethink the role that slavery played in creating the conflict. By 1862, Lincoln realized that it was folly to wage such a bloody war without plans to eliminate slavery. In September 1862, following the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in Maryland, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that all slaves in territory still in rebellion on January 1, 1863, would be declared forever free. The move was largely symbolic, as it only freed slaves in areas outside of Union control, but it changed the conlfict from a war for the reunification of the states to a war whose objectives included the destruction of slavery.

Lincoln believed that a constitutional amendment was necessary to ensure the end of slavery. In 1864, Congress debated several proposals. Some insisted on including provisions to prevent discrimination against blacks, but the Senate Judiciary Committee provided the eventual language. It borrowed from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, when slavery was banned from the area north of the Ohio River. The Senate passed the amendment in April 1864."

The above quote is from one of many sources I could cite, and a link to it is listed below. I'd like to see your references.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...dment-ratified

Lol, no u didn't try to quote this and ask for my references, the history channel, that's tv that entertainment whiteboy, look up Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley n rethink ur position on this matter

[Wheretonow]

Originally Posted by theboss21422

Lol, no u didn't try to quote this and ask for my references, the history channel, that's tv that entertainment whiteboy, look up Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley n rethink ur position on this matter

Here's how intelligent discussions are properly conducted:

If you believe that a reference used by your opponent is incorrect, you either find an alternant source that is more creditable, or find legitimate reasons why his source is not creditable. If the History Channel used faulty research or misstated facts, there should be verifiable data you could find and quote to show that. Instead you hurl out some vague reference that you're apparently too lazy to even look up yourself.

Don't expect me to do your homework for you.

And continuing to use racial slurs against me simply further indicates you can't properly support your case on its merits, so you resort to the kinds of prejudicial actions you falsely accuse me of. You might want to take up an endeavor that more suits your education and intellect - checkers comes to mind.

[playerplano]

My mother , God keep her soul , was a freaking genius. She taught me that assholes come in all colors and treat everyone like a human being. Until they show with their actions they are truly an asshole then don't spend any of your time with assholes.

For whatever it's worth pick any low income , undereducated , no opportunity community and leave out color. You will be standing in the highest crime area even though they have nothing ! When people any people stop taking from their neighbors ( the in the same boat poor neighbors ) then there will be peace on earth.

Merry Christmas even to the people who don't believe in Christmas.

[Alastair]

I believe this is true. People with money don't tend to do petty crime, but people with money still commit crime, just not the kind that makes people buy bars for their windows. But as someone else said, if it were all about economics then America (and the world for that matter) wouldn't have recovered from the Great Depression because the poor would have razed the country to the ground. So the racial question, if there can be one, is does race have any bearing on the poor and crime. All other things being equal do blacks commit crime at a disproportionate ratio than other races? My thing is it doesn't make any difference one way or the other. You can't fake the numbers and sociologists and criminologists can give us any reason we want to hear.

The facts are - the melting pot of America is never going away. Since white people aren't allowed to do things openly to benefit their race, money is the only viable equalizer in America, and this will continue. Slavery will never come back but we can't erase slavery from the past. Every single person in America can be valuable to the country and just not being an asshole is better than being a problem.

Say no to assholism and we'll all be better off.

[andymarksman]

It feels great to be a college student all over again, but I have to move on, Professor Wheretonow. And I can tell you must have been a fairly high ranking officer in military(if not actually teaching at West Point.) Hopefully you won't accuse me for committing one or more logical fallacies here. Well, maybe you should.

BTW, you are not a Catholic from England, aren't you? Otherwise you are still indebted to the Protestants over there because the Parliament controlled by the Protestants voluntarily ceased all persecutions against the Catholics after the end of the Napoleonic War. Hopefully by your definition you won't commit a logical fallacy here. Wouldn't you?

[EZ.]

Originally Posted by Trill Jackson

Radical Islam? You didn't know anything about that religion before 2001.

dont let a few bad apples ruin an entire religion of 1.5 billion people.

Should we judge white people by the actions of Hitler or Stalin? After all they're white.

We live in a country that tortures prisoners of war and the current president has targeted and deployed weapons in 7 Muslim-majority countries since taking office. So are they the radicals or are we?

We have killed more than they have, we have invaded more countries than they have. But somehow we are immune to our actions because "the Iraq war killed 1 million civilians, but it was a mistake and doesn't represent our values"

You know who determines what "violence" is? The people with the most guns.

I learned, first hand, about Islam, while training the Christian Militia during the Lebanese Civil War back in 1975.

What happens to a person if you indoctrinate them into the Aryan Brotherhood or some other white supremacist group? It is no different than being indoctrinated into a religion that is based in hate. Islam was created by a murderous pirate. Read the Quran and see for yourself what these people believe.

Water boarding, though unpleasant, is far less brutal than firing rockets from drones. Have you seen what the Islamic State is doing in Iraq? They have no regard for anyone that isn't one of their own.

I won't be around to see it but you better toughen up because you are going to have to deal with these Muslims soon enough.

[Wheretonow]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

It feels great to be a college student all over again, but I have to move on, Professor Wheretonow. And I can tell you must have been a fairly high ranking officer in military(if not actually teaching at West Point.) Hopefully you won't accuse me for committing one or more logical fallacies here. Well, maybe you should.

BTW, you are not a Catholic from England, aren't you? Otherwise you are still indebted to the Protestants over there because the Parliament controlled by the Protestants voluntarily ceased all persecutions against the Catholics after the end of the Napoleonic War. Hopefully by your definition you won't commit a logical fallacy here. Wouldn't you?

andymarksman - you seem like a great guy. Have a happy new year.

[andymarksman]

I wanted to ask if you believe blacks in South Africa still are indebted to their white counterpart just because F.W. de Klerk and his white-Afrikaner controlled parliament have voluntarily ended apartheid. But I think I'll let your conscience answer it.

Now I do believe Montgomery and Rommel indeed do admire each other.

[Wheretonow]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

I wanted to ask if you believe blacks in South Africa still are indebted to their white counterpart just because F.W. de Klerk and his white-Afrikaner controlled parliament have voluntarily ended apartheid. But I think I'll let your conscience answer it.

Now I do believe Montgomery and Rommel indeed do admire each other.

The South African government was under immense international political and economic pressure to end apartheid, so their actions were far less altruistic than the U.S. government, but I suspect the oppressed black South Africans were pleased with Klerk's actions to end apartheid.

As for Rommel and Montgomery:

"Rommel was extraordinarily well known in his lifetime, not only by the German people, but also by his adversaries. His tactical prowess and consistent decency in the treatment of allied prisoners earned him the respect of many opponents, including Claude Auchinleck, Winston Churchill, George S. Patton, and Bernard Montgomery. Rommel reciprocated their respect. He at one time said Montgomery "never made a serious strategic mistake" and credited Patton with "the most astounding achievement in mobile warfare". Rommel's admiration of the British was particularly notable; while having tea with George Lane, a captured British commando, he expressed regret that Germany and Britain had not been allies during both world wars."

From this source:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin...lar_perception