"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[Shadow Wolf]

I bet I got made fun of more for being a Latter-day Saint than any “gay” kids get made fun of today.

It's time to play the Special Victim Olympics! And, no, you probably didn't get made fun of more.

In fact - I’d go as far as to say that children who “come out” get nothing but praise and adulation.

Just thought to be gay was more of an accusation when I was a child. Gay bashing still went in where I used to live in Indiana. And, alot if people still kick their gay kids out of their home. They get harassed. They get demands to change what they can't change.
The victimize and persecution complex of Christians never ceases to amaze me at how they continually lower the bear and standards of what persecution is.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I know it has been a while and I want to send you something.

I went ahead and addressed your longest comment - which was your attempt to clear up confusion - which I really appreciate by the way.

I’ll send this to you ahead of the rest - and I want to express my gratitude to you for your willingness to come together in understanding.

It has been my experience on this site that not many people try to do this.

Okay, I'm willing to approach you in good faith now, because I'm starting to see that the issue between you and me may in fact be that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean when I talk about systemic racism. You hear the term "racism", and you immediately link it with the concept of individual racists - i.e: to you, racism is something that an individual person DOES because of expressedly racist views. So, when you hear me talk about "systemic racism", what you hear is me alleging that a large number of people in American society are actively choosing to enact racism. But this is not what I mean when I talk about SYSTEMIC racism, compared with just racism in general, and the distinction between the two is more than a little important.

This distinction is very important and I thank you for attempting to clear up confusion.

Unfortunately - I do not believe that the term “systemic racism” describes “a large number of people in American society who are actively choosing to enact racism”.

I define “systemic racism” as “institutionalized discrimination based on race or ethnicity” and just to be clear I define “institutionalized” as “an established custom, practice or part of an official organization”.

I do not believe - because I have seen no evidence - that disparities among groups or races in the United States today are the result of an established custom, practice or part of an official organization that is based on racial or ethnic discrimination.

Unless - of course - we are talking about Democratic programs - such as Affirmative Action which does discriminate based on a person’s race or ethnicity.

See, when I talk about systemic racism, I don't mean to imply that there is some individual sitting in a room somewhere who makes all of these decisions about economics, police force and criminal justice who happens to be a racist, and that this individual operates the system in such a way so as to deliberately negatively impact black people. Nor am I really even saying that there are lots of individuals working within these systems who are equally racist, and make decisions every day to operate the system in a racist way.

That’s good and I hope you know that I was never trying to imply that you were espousing these ideas.

Now, it is important to acknowledge that such people do exist, but for the purposes of discussing SYSTEMIC racism, the existence of such individuals is largely secondary.

Of course racist people exist because people can love and hate anyone for any reason. They are free.

Unfortunately - there is not much any of us can do to change human nature - other than to point out when it makes no sense or is counterproductive.

We can - however- hold people accountable if they allow their hatred to cause them to illegally discriminate against others - by enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

What systemic racism looks at instead is the ways in which THE SYSTEM - removed as it is from individual agents who operate within it - disproportionately affects a particular race or races.

I cannot fully agree with this explanation of “systemic racism”, but I appreciate your efforts.

The reason that I cannot fully agree is because how a system affects an individual is not based solely on the system - but also on the choices made by the individual.

For example - a diverse classroom of students who all take the same test are all going to get different grades - because the results are based on their performance.

Now - if a certain student does poorly on the test - that is not the test’s fault - but rather the fault of the student.

To be more relevant - if most of the African-American students do poorly on the test - that is cause for concern - but I would not instantly believe that there was something wrong with the test.

That conclusion would be illogical because all the students took the same test.

It would also be illogical to assume that these African-American students did poorly because of their race - because not all the African-American students did poorly on the test.

This example would cause me to look for other factors that they may have in common - such as their level of education, their home life, their study habits, level of poverty, etc.

Basically - I would not blame either the test or the student’s race for why they tested poorly - because I would consider either of those conclusions to be illogical.

If a particular group of people are affected in the same way by the same system - there are more relevant traits of that group - such as their culture - that could offer a better explanation.

It is not enough to simply say "a police officer is racist" or "a judge is racist" or "a politician is racist". These can all be true in individual cases, but they tell us nothing about the ways in which race is AFFECTED by the systems these people operate in.

Now this is where you and I diverge completely - because I believe that it is culture - not race - that decides whether a person will flourish in the United States.

I contend that the culture being lived by and taught to the majority of African-Americans today causes them not to flourish in the United States.

I would also go as far to claim that those African-Americans who abandon this culture are those who break the cycle of poverty and flourish.

Now - I am not claiming that EVERY aspect of African-American culture leads them to poverty - but it does contain aspects that lead to the main causes of poverty.

I agree with then Senator Barack Obama when he claimed that those who grow up in a fatherless household are “five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

I would go even further and claim that having a father in the home is the most influential socio-economic factor that determines if someone lives in poverty.

For example, only 8% of black married-couple families live in poverty. And among those families, if both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5%.

The 80% single motherhood rate in the African-American community is the product of culture - not race.

The high school drop-out rate in the African-American community being twice that of “Non-Hispanic” Whites is the product of culture - not race.

The disproportionately higher crime rate in the African-American community is the product of culture - not race.

Remember that the Brookings Institution concluded that if an impoverished teenager were to decide to 1.) Graduate high school, 2.) Wait until age 21 to get married and have children, and 3.) Get and keep a full-time job - they’d have a 75% likelihood of joining the middle class.

This leads me to believe that if African-Americans were to reject those aspects of their culture which lead to high drop-out rates, teenage/unmarried mothers and unemployment - they can break the cycle of poverty and therefore crime.

It is my personal opinion that these negative aspects of African-American culture are greatly motivated by both a sense of perpetual victim-hood - which is fed to them and fueled by the media, Hollywood, leaders in the African-American community and the Democratic Party - which leads to a false sense of entitlement - and the welfare programs that began with the Democrat’s “War on Poverty”.

I believe that people see a racial disparity - rather than a cultural one - because culture tends to correlate with race.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

To explain further, let's look at that statistic I raised earlier about how - despite the fact that white people and black people in a particular area both used illegal drugs at a similar rate - black people were still more than twice as likely to be arrested for drug-related offences.

I also remember that you referenced a Vox source in support of this idea and I asked you to supply a source other than Vox.

Vox - in my opinion - is almost always misleading - because they “spin” the data so that it supports the narrative they are trying to push - and I believe the “fact” that you referenced here is a clear example of that.

I believe that the “statistic” you are referring to was summed up by your Vox source as - “Black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs, even though they’re not more likely to use or sell them.”

This Vox source used data from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report and U.S. Census Bureau to make this claim.

However - we instantly see issues between the conclusion that Vox makes and the source its uses to support that claim.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health is a completely voluntary survey of roughly 70,000 U.S. residents (randomly selected nationwide) conducted by an in-person interview.

There are many issues with using a survey as supporting evidence - such as the types of questions asked, how they were phrased and if the respondents were truthful in their answers - but let’s ignore that for now and assume that all the questions were clear and that all respondents were truthful in their answers.

The 2013 survey does claim - as Vox stated - that 9.5% of White (this is “Non-Hispanic” White - although Vox did not mention this) respondents and 10.5% of African-American respondents claimed to have used an illicit substance in the past month.

However - someone using an illicit substance in the past month is not an indicator of if they are “likely” to use again - not to mention if someone is “likely” to manufacture or sell illicit substances.

Even if 100% of White respondents claimed to have used an illicit substance in the past month (and we assume that African-American respondents stayed at 10.5%) that does not prove that these White respondents are “more likely” to use illicit substances again or “more likely” to manufacture or sell them than the African-American respondents.

It is impossible to measure the “likelihood” of any of these respondents using, manufacturing or selling illicit substances - even if everyone claimed to have used an illicit substance in the past month.

Basically - your claim that “white people and black people in a particular area both used illegal drugs at a similar rate” is not only impossible to substantiate (because it is based on data from a survey) but it is almost completely irrelevant to likelihood of future use, manufacturing or distribution of illicit substances - i.e. criminality.

That data is not only questionable - but not relevant to arrest and imprisonment rates.

Now - to it’s credit - Vox’s “Drug-related arrests per 100,00 residents of each race” chart is consistent with the data from the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report - although the way they chose to represent it makes the disparity look much worse than it actually is - in my opinion.

Anyways - right after sharing the arrest data the Vox source instantly starts to discredit the idea that this disparity was caused by racial bias. It says,

“Some of these disparities are explained by socioeconomic factors — such as poverty, unemployment, segregation, and neglect by the police when it comes to serious crimes — that lead to more crime and violence in black communities. As a result, police tend to be more present in black neighborhoods — and therefore may be more likely to take policing actions, from traffic stops to arrests to shootings, in these areas.”

Even though I do not know what Vox means when it says “segregation” or how police “neglect” African-American communities in regards to “serious crimes” - I did notice that Vox admitted that “socioeconomic factors” lead to more crime and violence in African-American communities which causes more patrolling and policing actions.

Then Vox claims that these “higher crime rates in black communities” explain a whopping “61 to 80 percent of black overrepresentation in prisons” and that the rest of the “overrepresentation” could be “attributable to other factors, including, potentially, racial bias or past criminal records influencing a prison sentence.” (Bold and italics added)

So - in a nutshell - Vox claims that,

• a plethora of socioeconomic factors lead to higher crime rates in African-American communities
  
  
• the higher crime rate leads to more policing actions in African-American communities
  
  
• the higher crime rate explains 61-80% of African-American “overrepresentation” in U.S. prisons
  
  
• the other 39-20% could be potentially explained by racial bias or past criminal records

So - a potential explanation - is not evidence of anything - it is an assumption - and Vox left me thinking that racial bias is a non-issue in regards to rates of arrest and imprisonment of African-Americans.

Then when we also consider the facts that I presented in my last post (which you claimed to agree with) there are even more explanations for the disparity - outside of race.

I know you didn’t bring up imprisonment rates in the comment I was addressing - but Vox flowed from arrest to imprisonment - so I did too.

Anyways - in summary - Vox cannot use the survey data to make any determinations about a respondent's “likelihood” to use, manufacture or sell an illicit substance - so their claim that African-American are “not more likely to use or sell” drugs than “Non-Hispanic” Whites is their opinion which they presented as fact.

And they also provided so many reasonable and relevant explanations for why there is a disparity in arrests and imprisonment of African-Americans (besides race) - that I am left even more convinced that racial bias is a non-issue.

I believe that the claim you made above - about “similar rate” of drug use and arrest rate - is based on opinions and assumptions - not facts.

And, for the sake of argument, let's accept the following two propositions:

1) The discrepancy in the arrest rate cannot possibly be due to increased criminality, because the rate of crime in both groups is the same, so it cannot simply be asserted that black people were "more likely" to commit this particular crime.

2) The racism of individual officers played no role in determining arrests - or, if officers were racist, it played a relatively small role in determining arrests. I.E police did not arrest anybody simply because they are black.

So, we've accepted now that the crime rate is the same and - for the sake of argument - that racism played no role in the behaviour of individual officers making arrests. Judging from your posts, I would assume that you would be happy to accept both of these statements.

I will do so for the sake of your argument.

Despite the fact that the incarceration rates of African-Americans reflect actual crime rates of African-Americans.

You are being very fair - however - by relenting on proposition #2 - so for the sake of argument I will also relent.

Now, once we have accepted these statements, the next challenge is to explain the discrepancy in arrests. We can no longer blame disparity in crime rates, because the rates are the same; and we cannot simply blame "racism", because we're assuming race wasn't a factor in the arrests. So, with that in mind, what other factors could possibly lead to a disproportionate number of black people being arrested for this crime?

One obvious factor could be police deployment. As we have both said, crime is closely linked with poverty, and criminality is more likely to be found in poorer areas. With this in mind, it is likely to assume that police are more often deployed to poorer areas when looking to make drug-related arrests. And, again, black people are significantly more likely to be the victims of poverty than white people (again, for whatever reason). So, when police are sent to these areas, they are more likely to make arrests of black people than white people.

Notice that the above in no way requires any individual police officer to be racist. As you said, facts aren't racist. Simply by responding (arguably appropriately) to crime statistics and demographics, police simply being deployed to particular areas and carrying out their job without any racist intentions or ideology may still be more likely to arrest black people than white people. Of course, all of this ignores the very real impact of, among other things, racial profiling. But, again, we're assuming no racism whatsoever on the part of the individuals involved in policing, and even then we are left with a system that is disproportionately affecting black people, regardless of actual criminality.

It isn't about individual racists or individual acts of racism - it is about the way the system is set up in such a way that, regardless of justification, disproportionately negatively impacts a particular race.

I think I understand your position. If I am understanding it correctly - I consider it to be fundamentally flawed - but I think I get it.

From what I can tell you are arguing that since African-Americans were once slaves they began their freedom in poverty and have since then never overcome its ravages.

Because they were once slaves they live in perpetual squalor and victimization. They can never overcome these things.

Therefore - the system which punishes the effects of poverty - i.e. crime - is racist because that same system is responsible for making African-Americans impoverished in the first place.

If this is your position - then I disagree and have many questions - if this is not your position - please correct me.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The question is why do you think that is?

Why do I think the African-American community is structured in such a way that its members are encouraged to and are more able to commit illegal acts?

I believe it is a cycle of poor life-choices and poverty.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not claiming that African-Americans have a monopoly on poor life-choices and poverty - but African-Americans are the only race that is taught - by almost every source within and without their community - that they are perpetual victims.

Just think - How destructive would it be to a child to tell them that no matter what they do or how hard they try they will always be violated and oppressed by invisible forces?

It instills in them this whole, “I’m damned if I do and I’m damned if I don’t” mentality which - I believe - causes them to be more likely to make poor life-choices which continues the cycle of poverty.

Obviously there are members of every race that make poor life-choices and are in poverty - but the false narrative that African-Americans are and will forever be victims - that causes these things to be more destructive and have a longer lasting effect in the African-American community.

I believe that those in the African-American community who reject this false narrative are those who are more likely to make good life-choices and disrupt the cycle of poverty.

False. Other variable HAVE been considered.

I don’t believe that you have considered them.

This wasn't a conclusion I jumped to randomly.

No, it was not random. It agrees with the narrative you subscribe to - so you cling to it - despite facts.

The fact is that the other variables are not sufficient enough to explain the widespread discrepancy.

That is your opinion - not a fact.

No, because the frameworks are different. It's not just about sheer number within the demographic, it's about what the social causes are that lead to it.

Yet you answered, “Yes.” to my question, “You believe that since African-Americans make up approximately 13% of the population than they should only make up 13% of all arrests/prisoners, or the system is racist?”

Basically - you believe - at least in regards to African-Americans - that it is all about sheer numbers within the demographic.

You turn a blind-eye to any and all social causes that could lead to a higher crime-rate among African-Americans.

Why do you say that the numbers don’t matter and that we should consider social causes when it comes to the incarceration of men, but then claim that since African-Americans make up only 13% of the population then they should only make up 13% of all arrests/prisoners - which imposes results strictly by the numbers and ignores all social causes?

By that logic - there should be more women in prison than men since there are more women in the U.S. than there are men - right?

I ask you again - why are you being so inconsistent?

When you consider that men are often seen as physically more capable, more encouraged to violence, more associated with criminality, and generally given more agency than women, it's not hard to understand why men tend to commit more crime - and it's not because of a systemic bias against men.

This is hilarious because everything you just said is a bias against men. Total hypocrisy.

The difference between that and racial representation are significant, because what is consistently observed is black people being arrested more often, more often charged, and serving longer sentences regardless of actual crime rates.

You keep saying this, but it is statistically inaccurate. African-Americans commit crime at a much higher rate than other races.

Consider the murder rate - African-Americans constitute only 13% of the population - yet they account for over 52% of all murder in the U.S.

It could be argued that we should only consider African-American males in this comparison because they commit the vast majority of those murders - so 6.5% of the population commit over 52% of the murder in the Untied States.

Contrast that with South Africa - a country whose government is demonstrably more racially biased towards the local African population than the U.S. is towards African-Americans - whose local Africans make up 76.7% of the population and account for 78.06% of murders.

Why do African-Americans commit such a hugely disproportionate amount of murders in the United States while the murders committed by Africans in South African are almost perfectly proportioned to their population?

I believe that this is due largely to the fact that Africans in South Africa are not teaching their children that they are perpetual victims.

It could be argued that African-American culture - in regards to violence and murder - is inferior to African culture in South Africa.

If crime rates between men and women were the same, but the arrest rate between men and women were disproportionately male, that might indicate an issue. But the rates are not the same - men DO commit significantly more crime than women.

The same sources that prove that men commit more crime than women also prove that African-Americans commit more crime than other races.

The arrest-rates of African-Americans reflect the crime-rates of African-Americans.

And the reasons for this are myriad, but can be accounted for by a variety of factors that do not includes sexism against men (again, you only need look around you to see American society is hugely centered around men).

First off - I believe that just a cursory glance at American culture and society would prove that it is hugely centered around women - not men.

Just look at how we advertise!

You’d really have to be mining deep for that confirmation bias to be convinced that American society is centered around men.

Secondly - why do you look for these “myriad” of reasons (except sexism) to explain the disproportion between male and female incarceration rates - but you demand that only 13% of arrests/prisoners should be African-American?

Again - I note your inconsistency.

The discrepancy between race cannot be equally dismissed, because not only is it more significantly disproportionate, it is indicative of a longer history of racism in the USA.

I believe you have been caught in some very circular reasoning.

Because they actually do. And part of it is sexism, but not the part of it you think. The variables CANNOT account for why black people are more likely be arrested and serve longer sentences than white people in thousands of cases.

According to the sources you have shared there are many reasons for why African-Americans are more likely to get arrested and serve longer sentences.

The Vox source claimed that the higher rates of crimes in African-American communities leads to more policing and police actions in those communities.

Basically - African-Americans are more likely to be arrested because they are more likely to commit crime.

All of your sources claimed that two people who commit the same crime can receive different sentences based on a variety of factors, including; whether or not they have dependents, if they have ever gone to college and if they have past criminal records.

And since the average African-American is; less likely to have dependents, less likely to have gone to college and more likely to have a past criminal record than their average “Non-Hispanic” White counterpart - they are more likely to not only go to prison, but to serve a longer sentence than their average “Non-Hispanic” White counterpart.

All of these results - more arrests and longer sentences - are based on poor life-choices - which is heavily influenced by culture - and I believe the African-American culture is uniquely destructive because they teach their children that they are perpetual victims.

If you convince anyone that they are a perpetual victim - they will make poor life-choices - regardless of their race.

No, I'm actually doing the opposite. I'm giving you the opportunity to openly state that you are NOT racist.

That is rather asinine.

How about we just assume that neither of us is racist until proven otherwise?

So, we can now accept that you are not a racist and do not believe that race plays a role in how African-Americans are treated by the justice system.

Now, with that in mind, how do you explain the consistent and widespread disparity between black and white people in the justice system - accepting, as you clearly do now, that race does not play a role in criminality?

It is based completely on culture - not race.

I know you asked me to explain the disparity between African-Americans and “Non-Hispanic” Whites, but I want to talk about Asian-Americans - because I believe that that would be more relevant to my point.

The reason that Asian-Americans excel in the United States more than members of other races (even “Non-Hispanic” Whites) is because of certain aspects of their respective cultures - not their race.

Key aspects of their culture are superior to key aspects of other cultures (even “Non-Hispanic” Whites) in the U.S. - which should be celebrated and adopted by other people if they want greater success.

Every member of every race should look at the key aspects of their respective cultures and cast out those that are inferior (lead to poor life-choices) and replace them with those that are superior (lead to good life-choices).

In the United States - it is not race that leads to success or ruin - it is culture.

Okay. So now we have to ask the question "Why are black people more disproportionately represented IN POORER COMMUNITIES?"

Keep in mind, the answer to this question is important, because it gets to the heart of what systemic racism actually IS.

I know I sound like a broken record - but I believe that African-Americans are disproportionately represented in poorer communities because of the negative aspects of their culture that I have mentioned in this and past posts.

That certainly is an important question, but another important question is why does poverty so clearly disproportionately effect black communities? To ignore the potential racial components of poverty can (and does) ignore an important historical and social aspect of how poverty arises and persists.

Culture and race tend to go hand-in-hand.

Poverty can arise for all kinds of reasons - but it persists when people live according to a culture that cultivates poor life-choices.

Nope. Sorry, I was with you the entire way up to that last line.

That literally makes zero sense.

If you agree with the conclusions made by the Brookings Institute - then you would agree with the last line I wrote.

If you do not agree with the last line I wrote then you also do not agree with the conclusions made by the Brookings Institute.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Nobody can simply "choose" not to stay in poverty. It's not that simple.

According to the Brookings Institute an impoverished teenager who follows the guidelines I mentioned - which you claimed to be “with me” on - has a 75% likelihood of entering the middle class.

This means that if an impoverished teenager decides to graduate high school, not marry or have children until the age of 21, and gets and keeps a full-time job - they have a 75% likelihood of getting out of poverty.

These are choices that people can decide to make to get out of poverty.

People have to work hard and - more importantly - receive opportunities that allow them to rise out of poverty and, as I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated so far, this is much, much easier for some than it is for others.

It is this mentality - perpetual victimhood - that keeps people down.

In the United States deciding to work hard creates opportunities. Waiting around for an opportunity or a hand-out will get you nowhere.

I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated that it is through the choices people make - which are heavily influenced by culture - that leads to success or ruin.

The world doesn't owe anyone success. It must be earned.

And one of the facts that can significantly determine the opportunities a person receives is race.

You’re thinking about culture here - not race.

I'm going to ignore the political wrangling here, because all you've really done is raise more questions that implicate systemic racism.

You are ignoring it because you don’t want to admit how the “War on Poverty” not only failed - but made things worse for African-Americans.

Any attempt to “correct history” ends in abject failure.

I’d be willing to accuse the Democratic Party of implementing racist programs and policies though.

Why wold a policy that benefits single-parent households disproportionately effect black families rather than white families?

This is a great question and I believe - because I am a broken-record at this point - the “perpetual victimhood” mentality had in African-American culture has led generations of African-American women to feel “entitled” to these benefits.

Even though poverty knows no race - the African-American community is the only one who is taught - both within and without their community - that they are entitled to these types of benefits because of historical injustices.

They have been told that they are and will forever be victims of injustice - even if they themselves were never placed in chains or discriminated against.

“Non-Hispanic” White families can and do also receive these types of benefits - but they are not taught - both within and without their community - that they are entitled to them because they are inheritors of privilege and therefore can never be victims of historical injustices.

This is just semantics that ignores the implications of the actual facts presented.

You’re just trying to ignore how your own source discredits your position on this issue.

The fact remains that there are all kinds of things considered by judges when they decide if someone is to go to prison and for how long.

Yes. They are not sufficient to explain the trend.

That is your opinion - and thankfully the other sources you shared give us even more reasons (other than race) that help explain the trend.

But would still receive a more severe punishment than a WHITE American who committed the same crimes.

Your source did not make that claim. This is your opinion.

Correct.

And - WHY do you think that is?

Culture.

They actually do, but that's kind of the point. What you're actually slowly edging towards is systemic racism.

Not at all.

I’m “slowly edging” toward proving that key aspects of African-American culture are harmful to African-Americans and should be abandoned.

Because systemic racism isn't about individual racism of judges or police. It's about the way the SYSTEM works.

Yet - barring the possibility of a trial-by-jury - it is the judge who makes the determination of whether someone goes to prison and how long they shall stay in prison.

Your source claimed that there is “reason to doubt '' that racial or ethnic prejudices among judges is why they are placing more African-Americans in prison for longer sentences.

If judges are not doing this for racial reasons - then that leaves us thinking that these African-Americans are all doing things that causes them to go to prison and receive longer sentences.

What the facts point out is that key aspects of African-American culture clash with the system of law and order established in the United States.

You see a racial disparity - rather than a cultural one - because culture and race go hand-in-hand.

And because racism fits your narrative.

Except my conclusion is about SYSTEMIC racism, not the racism of individual people or judges.

Then stop pointing to the fact that African-Americans are going to prison more and receiving longer sentences than their “Non-Hispanic” White counterparts as evidence of systemic racism.

Because those decisions are made by individual judges and your source claims that there was “reason to doubt” that those judges were making those decisions based on racial or ethnic prejudice.

If this is not evidence of systemic racism - stop claiming that it is.

Oh dear. You just used the "making decisions" argument again.

Yes - I did. And I will continue to do so until the end of time - or at least until the end of the United States.

In the United States our success and failure hinges almost completely on the decisions that we make.

Of course, Democrats are to blame.

No - but they do share some of the blame.

Why do you and others like you keep trying to nullify the concept of individual accountability?

The Democrats cannot force African-American teenagers to have children or to drop out of high school.

Democrats can be blamed for giving these people a “safety net” that binds them with financial and economic shackles - but they can’t be blamed for these poor life-choices.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain WHY you think this fact is true. So far, you seem to be avoiding answering that question because you know that you have two choices:

1) Either state that black people are somehow genetically pre-disposed to commit crime (making you a racist, which you vehemently deny).

2) Admit that there is some form of systemic racism.

I have been repeatedly answering this question. It is the third option,

3.) Key aspects of African-American culture encourage its members to commit illegal acts.

As I have been saying from the beginning. It’s all about culture - not race.

Agreed.

No - you don’t agree.

You just said that African-Americans should only make up 13% of arrests/prisoners because they make up 13% of the population.

That is totally disagreeing with the concept of, “We should imprison those who commit crimes - despite their race.”

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

But that doesn't explain why black people receive stricter sentences, are more likely to be arrested for similar crimes, are more likely to suffer police brutality and are more disproportionately affected by all the various factors that generate criminality (such as poverty). When you start to think about those things, you start to realize what systemic racism actually is.

OK. Let’s break this down.

“But that doesn’t explain why...

1.) African-Americans receive stricter sentences -

This is a decision made by a judge and you have already claimed that decisions made by individual judges has nothing to do with your claim of systemic racism.

Like I said before, “If this is not evidence of systemic racism - stop claiming that it is.”

2.) African-Americans are more likely to be arrested for similar crimes -

This is a claim that is impossible to prove.

Although the higher crime rate in African-American communities does justify an increased police presence which leads to more policing actions.

Basically - police officers doing their jobs is not systemic racism.

3.) African-Americans are more likely to suffer police brutality -

You already agreed with me when I claimed that African-Americans are more likely to flee or resist arrest.

If a police officer is required to use force - based on the action or inaction of a suspect or offender - then no one should be surprised if someone gets hurt.

I understand that you like to employ various circular reasoning's like;

Blacks resist arrest because police officers are violent towards blacks→ Police officers use force on those who resist arrest → Black resist arrest because police officers are violent towards blacks → ad infinitum.

Basically - it is a self-fulfilling prophecy to claim that police officers are violent toward African-Americans while maintaining that African-Americans are justified when they resist arrest.

I saw a great list of “10 Rules of Survival if Stopped by the Police” which everyone who is stopped by police should follow:

1. Be polite and respectful when stopped by the police. Keep your mouth closed.

2. Remember that your goal is to get home safely. If you feel that your rights have been violated, you and your parents have the right to file a formal complaint with your local police jurisdiction.

3. Don’t, under any circumstance, get into an argument with the police.

4. Always remember that anything you say or do can be used against you in court.

5. Keep your hands in plain sight and make sure the police can see your hands at all times.

6. Avoid physical contact with the police. No sudden movements, and keep hands out of your pockets.

7. Do not run, even if you are afraid of the police.

8. Even if you believe that you are innocent, do not resist arrest.

9. Don’t make any statements about the incident until you are able to meet with a lawyer or public defender.

10. Stay calm and remain in control. Watch your words, body language and emotions.

None of this means that police officers are trigger-happy lunatics that we should be cowering in fear of.

It points out that every single person an officer approaches is a mystery to them. They do not know what to expect.

Anyone they approach could have a weapon and violent intent. They do not know - but they need to approach these people anyway to do their job.

Following these rules will help the officers know that you mean them no harm and that they don’t need to use force.

People often forget that police officers are people too - with families - and they want to go home at the end of the day just like anyone else and their gaining control of suspects and offenders keeps everyone safe.

4.) African-Americans are more disproportionately affected by all the various factors that generate criminality (such as poverty)

Again - broken-record here - that is because of their culture.

They are taught that they are perpetual victims that are owed success because of historical injustices that they themselves never experienced.

I believe this culture leads to higher drop-out rates, children born to teenage and unmarried mothers, unemployment, higher rates of crime, higher likelihood of arrest and imprisonment - and all this leads to further poverty.

I do not see any evidence of systemic racism.

No, it isn't. But it IS racist to blame this statistic on their race, rather than acknowledging systemic racism that generates this.

Then it is a good thing that I never once blamed this or any other statistic on anyone's race.

There is no system in the United States that forces anyone to murder someone else.

Your desire to blame some mythical system rather than acknowledge the real causes of poverty and crime in the African-American community - culture and poor life-choices - proves that you are not looking for a solution to these problems.

You just want another talking point for some liberal Democratic agenda.

No, my understanding is that since all of the facts show that there is systemic racism, there is systemic racism.

Why haven’t you shared any of these facts yet?

I mean - I’m literally asking you to share these things with me.

Why do you keep bringing up assumptions and assertions - when you claim to have actual facts to support your claim?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Even this post is rife with it. Literally, look at what you're saying above:

"There is no systemic racism in American economics - black people are just more likely to be poor."

"There is no systemic racism in American politics - black people are just more likely to be negatively impacted by government policy."

"There is no systemic racism in the American justice system - black people are just more likely to be punished and receive harsher sentences."

"There is no systemic racism in American policing - black people are just more likely to be victims of police brutality."

You're willing to acknowledge and accept all of the facts of systemic racism, but you're, for whatever reason, unwilling to accept the existence of systemic racism. You're missing the forest for the trees.

This is all nothing but confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

Every single one of these examples you have referenced can be explained by negative aspects of African-American culture.

African-Americans are more likely to live in poverty because the vast majority of African-American children are being raised without a father in the home.

As Obama claimed - this leads to all kinds of negative outcomes including poverty.

African-Americans are more likely to be negatively affected by certain government policies because they are being taught by the media, Hollywood, schools, their community leaders and the Democratic Party that they are victims of historical injustice and are therefore entitled to various privileges.

This is akin to convincing someone - who is perfectly capable of walking on their own - to always use crutches - thus weakening them and eventually making it impossible for them to walk on their own.

African-Americans are more likely to be punished for crimes because they commit more crime. The incarceration rate of African-Americans reflects the crime rate of African-Americans.

African-Americans are more likely to receive harsher sentences than their “Non-Hispanic” White counterparts due to an individual judge’s ruling which is based on a variety of variables - which you keep claiming is not evidence of systemic racism.

So stop bringing it up.

African-Americans are more likely to enter into altercations with police officers because they are more likely to flee or resist arrest.

Whether or not you believe that their fleeing or resisting is justified is beside the point. Police officers are required to gain control of suspects/offenders by any means necessary to ensure their own safety, the safety of the suspect/offender and the safety of all others.

You claim that I am missing the forest for the trees while I claim you are seeing a forest when there is nothing there.

Nothing that you are claiming exists actually exists in the United States today. Nothing.

No, it doesn't. It thoroughly supports my conclusion. You seem to still be under the misapprehension that my argument is about individual racists rather than systemic racism.

Your source failed to provide evidence of either individual racists or systemic racism.

It merely points out the effects of the negative aspects of African-American culture.

You said so yourself. You implied that, on the whole, black people are more likely to have worse credit.

Why do you think that is?

It is also true that - on the whole - Asian-Americans score high on the SAT.

That does not infer that the SAT is a test that is racist against all other races.

I asked you to explain how credit is a system that oppresses African-Americans and you try to turn it around and force me to answer the very question I posed to you?

No - I will not do that. Please answer my question.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That's ridiculous.

Then how would you explain it?

Explain why an African-American kid - who committed no crime and never had any past run-ins with the police - decides to run at the sight of the police unless someone told him to.

It makes no sense that black people are more likely to flee from police because they are more likely to be subjected to violence by the police?

Correct. It makes no sense. I refer you back to the list I shared earlier in this post.

Also - consider that a person comes into close proximity to a bear. That bear may or may not pose any threat to the person - but it may attack depending on the actions of the person.

If the person starts to run - is the bear more or less likely to give chase?

Now - I’m not trying to claim that police officers are mindless animals like bears - but if police officers do pose a risk to African-Americans - as you and others always claim - then wouldn’t it make more sense to deny them reasons or excuses to harm you?

It makes much more sense to follow the ten rules I shared previously than to run - which would cause the police officers to suspect that you have committed a crime - or to resist arrest - which would cause the police officers to use force to get you under control.

It makes zero sense to flee from the police or resist arrest.

Well, what explanation do you propose?

African-Americans are falsely taught that all police officers are racists who are looking for any opportunity to hurt them.

I understand that this mentality comes from the era of Democrat imposed and enforced Jim Crow laws - but today this is a negative aspect of African-American culture that needs to be abandoned.

Nope. Never even remotely implied that.

Then you are claiming that police officers are justified in chasing those African-American suspects who flee and using force to gain control over those African-American suspects who resist arrest?

Otherwise - you are claiming that police officers should just leave African-American criminals alone.

Which is it?

Again, no. Your point was that black people are more likely to flee police (assumedly regardless of whether a crime was committed). You have yet to explain why you think this is. I have proposed the explanation that it is because black people are more likely to be victims of police violence (something that is absolutely demonstrably true) regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed.

I never said "black people flee police because they're innocent".

For whatever reason - it makes no sense to flee from police officers or resist arrest. It never makes sense.

I'm sure they are. But that doesn't explain why black people are far more likely to flee, or why they are are more likely to be victims of police violence.

Culture.

AND WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS??

Culture.

The latter.

Culture.

I think it's irrelevant. I've never made a distinction between Republican and Democratic political policy with regards to systemic racism, and such party lines are not what I'm examining.

I’m having difficulty pointing out what kind of logical fallacy this is.

Cherry-picking? Stacked evidence? Argument by Selective Observation? Fallacy of Exclusion?

They all apply - but I’m going to go with Fallacy of Exclusion.

Good thing I never did either of those things, then.

Please stop projecting.

This is hilarious coming from you. All you have been doing is projecting.

But you're ignoring systemic racism.

You can’t ignore what doesn’t exist.

I'm not the one determined to feel like systemic racism doesn't exist.

I’m not determined to feel anything.

I am determined to find the truth and your claims are not supported by any evidence so it is not the truth.

It's not an ad hominem.

It is purely ad hominem.

Rather than explain why you disagree with my claim that the People decide who gets to represent them you asked me in Post #608, “Are you seriously this naive?”

Then when I asked you what led you to ask me that you said in Post #625, “Your naivety.”

Rather than directing any argument against my claim - you mocked me - and never explained why you thought I was naive or why my claim was flawed.

That is purely ad hominem.

Not even remotely like anything that I've ever written.

I will now quote what you said in Post #608 for a second time,

“When you have a community that votes against black people because of either ingrained racism, or a governmental system that actively prevents black people from obtaining positions of power, that is systematic oppression.”

You said that people who vote against the African-American do so because of their “ingrained racism”.

You said it.

Are you serious?

The rest of your post is just denial and babble.

I am 100% serious.

Obama had been President for only nine months when he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

By that point in his presidency he had done nothing but offer platitudes about denuclearization and peace in Muslim countries.

He literally won the Nobel Prize for doing nothing but giving lip service.

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that he got it simply for being black. He has coasted on his skin color his entire life.

And his personal wealth increased 30 times during the two terms that he was President, while Trump’s personal wealth has decreased by nearly half since he took office three years ago.

It goes to show what each man focused on while being the President and Obama has done nothing but coast and been given things his entire life.

I believe that he was one of the worst Presidents we have ever had.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Your beliefs are not backed up by the available data and are therefore, just your beliefs.

I completely disagree with this claim.

I have no idea why, but you continue to ignore the long-term consequences of the role slavery has played within the black community in the United States.

No. I have given all the consideration it warrants.

Your disdain for feminism is also duly noted.

Feminism is cancer.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Well, you have misconstrued a lot of what I’ve said.

No - I haven't.

You say things in haste - without giving them due consideration - then when I call you out for saying something irresponsible - you claim that I somehow made a mistake.

Basically - you lack individual accountability.

Your consistent misinterpretation of my comments about a lousy sex life, or the sex not being that great, for example.

I commented on your claim that you had a pathetic sex life like one time. That's hardly "consistent".

That was sarcasm.

Sarcasm is not easily conveyed via the internet.

When I am being sarcastic in my comments I give a note afterwards like (Sarcasm) or (Note: Sarcasm) - so that others know when I am being sarcastic.

Jokes are another thing that don't always come across clearly online.

Twisting everything everyone has said when you were challenged on anything.

Could you please share examples of me doing this?

I don't really believe that I have been "challenged" much on this thread.

People either claim that what I say is wrong or they make up false claims about my beliefs.

That's not exactly "challenging" me.

Bull****. One doesn’t “practice” heterosexuality or homosexuality. I mean, does one become a better homosexual the more he does it? Puts his shoulder to the grindstone? Does he become a grand master at some point? How long does he have to practice? And just what’s in the Homosexual Practice Handbook? Who comes up with this tripe?

Do you literally not understand that a word can have multiple meanings?

When I used the word "practice" I did not mean "performing an activity or exercising a skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency".

I used another definition of the word "practice" which is "a way of doing of something". It could also be used to describe "the application of an idea or method".

Basically - a person could have a same-sex attraction - but if they aren't actually engaging in homosexual behavior then they are not "practicing" homosexuality.

Meaning - they are not actually applying the idea or method of homosexuality to their lives. They are not having sexual relations "in that way".

The word "practice" has multiple meanings. It does not only mean "performing an activity or exercising a skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency".

Not at all the same or even close. You choose to be Christian just as I choose to be Hindu. However, I did not, I repeat, and read these words carefully... did not choose to be attracted to or aroused by men, any more than you are ostensibly attracted to women.

As I said from the beginning - no one gets to choose their weaknesses - and I believe that same-sex attraction is a weakness.

You deciding to engage in sexual relations with a member of the same-sex - i.e. your homosexuality - is something that you decide to do.

I know that I chose to become a Latter-day Saint - but I believe that I was born with the desire and/or ability to believe in something greater than myself.

So I ask you again, what is it about homosexuality that would make someone choose to be something most of society has hated and persecuted? Running risks of being denied employment, housing, and life.

You are not a victim for being a homosexual.

I submit that it’s something that shakes the foundations of your world and beliefs. Therefore, the only remaining answer you can process is that it’s a choice.

Homosexuality hurts the individual who practices it - not the person preaching against it.

I shared my beliefs about sin and homosexuality because you asked me to.

The idea that a person is born homosexual is contrary to the Word of God. Plain and simple.

The scriptures teach that homosexuality - which it defines as someone engaging in sexual relations with a member of the same-sex (not simply being attracted to the same-sex) - is sinful.

The scriptures also teach that God will never allow anyone to be tempted beyond what they are capable of enduring. Meaning - basically - that we will always be able to overcome temptation.

Therefore - sexual attractions - whether they be to the same or the opposing sex - can always be resisted and overcome - if that attraction were to lead to sin.

Sexual attraction does not always lead to sin - but any sexual attraction that leads to sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sinful - according to the scriptures.

So - no - homosexuality does not "shake" anything - but the false idea that people are born homosexual is in direct conflict with the Word of God.

I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not is a liar, deceitful or anything along those lines. I’m not smart enough. Believe me, I’m really pretty dumb. But your talent for spinning puts a whirling dervish to shame.

Then why did you claim that you had initially asked me to "justify" my beliefs - when anyone who reads your initial post to me can plainly see that you asked no such thing?

 

[Jainarayan]

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yes. Because you are the one saying that homosexuality needs to be justified.

I only asked @Jainarayan to justify homosexuality after he asked me to justify my beliefs.

It was an absurd retaliation for his absurd request.

I do not believe that homosexuality needs to be justified just as I do not believe that my beliefs need to be justified.

Except that it's not the definition that most people use.

I would argue that it is the definition that most people agree upon - but don't use in practice.

Take literally everyone on this thread as an example.

@9-10ths_Penguin claimed that me mentioning my belief that same-sex attraction and an attraction to children are both sexual attractions that I believe are inappropriate meant that "consent and respect don't factor into what I consider to be acceptable and unacceptable sexual relationships" (Bold and italics added) (Post #353)

He even repeated this idea again in Post #361 - when he knew I was talking about sexual attraction - not actions - but he immediately began talking about the actions.

He equated the attraction to children (pedophilia) with the potential actions of that attraction (rape). To him - pedophilia is indistinguishable from raping children.

@Jainarayan , @Shadow Wolf and @SomeRandom voted "Winner" to Post #361 - proving that they also consider pedophilia to be indistinguishable from raping children.

Then you not only agreed with @9-10ths_Penguin in Post #363 - proving that you also believe that pedophilia is indistinguishable from raping children - but you then claimed that I had mentioned an attraction to children to "demonize gay people" (Post #362)

Even though I clearly did not even "demonize" those who suffer from an attraction to children (pedophiles) when I said in my initial post to @Jainarayan ,

"I would not label someone a "pedophile" simply because they suffer from an attraction to children.

If they resist their urges, refuse to entertain inappropriate thoughts and desires and never once engage in sexual behavior with children - then I would not consider them pedophiles or claim that they committed the sin of pedophilia." (Post #326)

It makes no sense to claim that I brought up an attraction to children to "demonize" those who have a same-sex attraction when I never even "demonized" those who suffer from an attraction to children.

I wanted to make that distinction because I know that most people immediately associate pedophilia with raping children and it is a core concept of my beliefs that a weakness is not a sin - having an attraction is not sinful - it is acting on an inappropriate attraction that leads to sin.

I believe that both an attraction to children and same-sex attraction are inappropriate and can lead to sin.

Then we come again to @columbus and his comment that me sharing my beliefs "causes a great deal of damage" and that it was "similar to pedophilia" - proving that he too does not distinguish pedophilia from raping children. (Post #365)

Both you and @Jainarayan gave his post a "Winner" vote - proving again that both of you do not distinguish pedophilia from raping children.

So - yes - you may all now bring up the dictionary definition of "pedophilia" - but none of you stuck to that definition in this discussion. You all instantly associated pedophilia with raping children - claiming that they were one and the same.

It's kind of like, your own personal definition.

Well - since this entire discussion has been about my personal beliefs and how I view these sexual attractions and the difference between a weakness and a sin - doesn't that make sense?

Doesn't it make perfect sense when discussing my personal beliefs that we would use my personal views and definitions that I clearly explained in an attempt to avoid confusion?

If you don't want to use my definitions to discuss my personal beliefs - then it sounds like you don't want to come to know or understand my beliefs at all.

If that is so - then why do you keep asking me questions about my beliefs? Why are you really here?

Only yours.

These definitions have to do with sexual attractions.

I just shared a bunch of evidence above that proves that neither you nor anyone else mentioned in this thread believe that the word "pedophilia" defines only an attraction to children.

You all believe that "pedophilia" describes the actual raping of children. All of you. You cannot squirm out of it.

If you want to retract what you said earlier - that would be fine - but then you would have to admit that I in no way mentioned an attraction to children to "demonize" those who have a same-sex attraction.

You would also have to admit that I never claimed that "consent" and "respect" were not factors when considering appropriate sexual relationships or that me sharing my beliefs does any damage to anyone whatsoever.

Basically - you recanting on how you equated pedophilia to raping children - would dismantle most - if not all - of your arguments against me on this thread.

Considering that these arguments were only distractions in the first place - you wouldn't lose anything - besides face.

Consent was brought up because people with sexual attractions may want to act on them.

So? That doesn't make pedophiles rapists - as you and everyone else claimed.

I was the only one who accurately and appropriately separated attraction from action.

If someone who suffers from an attraction to children never submits to that attraction and acts on those urges - he commits no sin.

And I believe that if they were to rely on the grace and merits of the Lord Jesus Christ while resisting these urges - they may be able to completely overcome them,

It is you - and the others - who "demonize" those who have an attraction to children - labeling them as child abusers and rapists - while I offer them empathy and hope.

Depending on what kind of sexual attraction we are talking about, that may or may not be appropriate, because in some cases, consent on the part of the other party is not possible.

So - if one sexual attraction can be viewed as inappropriate - then is it so much of a stretch to consider that other sexual attractions could also be viewed as inappropriate?

This is where your whole “it needs to be justified” thing applies.

That is @Jainarayan 's whole "justified thing" - not mine.

I only asked him to justify homosexuality after he asked me to justify my beliefs.

If you don't like the whole "it needs to be justified" thing - take it up with him - not me.

Why couldn’t (s)he be talking about both?

Because that makes no sense.

Having an attraction does not include "consent" or "respect" or having any kind of "relationship" with the object of attraction.

@9-10ths_Penguin believes that pedophiles are those who rape children. There is no line between attraction and action.

And you agreed with him.

Raping a child is rape.

I would go further and claim that any sexual interaction of any kind with a child is rape.

Being sexually attracted to children is pedophilia. Pedophiles may or may not rape children.

If you honestly believe that - then amend all those untrue things you said or agreed to previously.

How does being attracted to children hurt someone? I’m guessing it takes quite a toll on one’s psyche. Imagine having to struggle with that? It also prevents someone from finding an appropriate mate with which to share one’s life and find some kind of companionship and/or fulfillment.

Now you are being intentionally obtuse.

We all know that the "damage" @columbus mentioned was the damage done to victimized children - not to anyone who suffers from an attraction to children.

Even though I do believe that having such an attraction does do damage to the one who has it - which is why I recommend they come to Christ - we all know that was not what @columbus was talking about.

It's stuff like this that led me to believe that you are not being sincere.

Some pedophiles sexually abuse children. Some don’t. All pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.

This is true - but it doesn't change what @9-10ths_Penguin , @columbus or you said before.

You all claimed that pedophilia was synonymous with raping children. You did. There is no getting around that.

You can take this opportunity to amend and claim that you made a mistake. You are always free to do that.

Similarly, heterosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Some heterosexuals rape members of the opposite sex. Some don’t. All heterosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Yes - but to be clear - if a person who suffers from an attraction to children acts on their attraction - it is always rape - since children cannot give consent.

That is not always so with those attracted to the opposite or the same-sex.

It's not merely that. It is that.

That is not what you and others have been claiming up to this point.

You can't be in denial about that.

I don’t agree with your definition, because learning about such things has been a part of my educational background.

Nice. A not-so-veiled attempt to claim that I am uneducated. Nice.

Either way - despite your "educational background" - you have been claiming that pedophilia is indistinguishable from raping children. That is a fact.

I never once claimed that the word "pedophilia" did not mean an attraction to children.

However - in a discussion about the difference between a weakness and a sin - I explained that an attraction was a weakness and an action was a sin.

I clearly separated the attraction from the action to better explain this belief.

I was also aware of the real life reaction had by those who hear the word "pedophilia" and how they instantly associate it with rape. Just as you and everyone else here has done.

Basically - I was trying to avoid the stupid of the world - but you guys hauled it in here and spread it all around.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

View attachment 37090

Well - that coincides with my earlier claim that you lack all accountability.

So - thank you for proving me right - I guess.

 

[columbus]

We all know that the "damage" @columbus mentioned was to victimized children - not to anyone who suffers from an attraction to children.

Nope.
That's just plain wrong.

Even though I do believe that having such an attraction does do damage to the one has it - which is why I recommend they come to Christ - we all know that was not what @columbus was talking about.

But you can never explain why you think a gay marriage causes any damage. You don't seem to have any interest in the parts of reality that contradict your high opinions of yourself.

Oh well. You're not the first. Or the last.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

False.

What I have done is show you the disparity and point out - at length - how systemic racism accounts for it.


This is also false. The sources I've provided demonstrate the disparity which is directly caused by systemic racism.

This is "laugh out loud" funny.

The sources you provide offer so many more reasonable explanations and they even discredit the idea of systemic racism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Jainarayan , @Shadow Wolf and @SomeRandom voted "Winner" to Post #361 - proving that they also consider pedophili

We do not think this. However, your Jesus does follow the logic it is when he said when a man looks upon a woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart. But, to those of us you advise of believing the same, we know there is a difference between the attraction and the action. The attraction we know people can't choose it control. But that doesn't apply to actions.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I never asked you to justify your beliefs, nor would I ever ask anyone to justify their beliefs. I would not do that because I'm not that disrespectful and do not like being disrespected, myself.

Let's review:

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad" This is where my failed sarcasm and snarkery comes into play.
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad" Now here's where it gets a little preachy, striving to save my soul from certain damnation.
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad" Pièce de résistance Part I
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad" Pièce de résistance Part II

In the very first comment of your post that you titled, "Pièce de résistance Part I" - you said,

"No, I didn't ask you to share your beliefs because I know what they are. I challenged you to back up your statements." (Bold and italics added)(Post #357)

You said this in response to what I said in Post #354,

"Don’t forget that you were the one who asked me to share my personal beliefs regarding the phenomenon of homosexuality. And then not only did you rudely dismiss them, but you made it seem as though I was somehow harassing you.

I did not force my beliefs upon you - you asked me to share them with you!" (Bold and italics added)

You "challenging" me to "back up my statements" - "my statements" being "my personal beliefs" - is you asking me to justify my beliefs.

You can claim not to agree with that - which would lead me to consider another post you made - but you did not include in your above list - for some unknown reason.

In Post #622 - in response to @SkepticThinker - I said, "Well, when someone asks you to share your beliefs- like @Jainarayan did me - I assume that they want to know what I believe."

You responded to this in Post #623 by saying, "Stop saying that. I did no such thing. I know what you believe, I asked you to justify them." (Bold and italics added)

So - it is clear - that you were talking about my beliefs and that you had asked me to justify them. The "statements" you had previously asked me to "back up" were my personal beliefs.

Why are you now claiming that you never asked me to justify my beliefs - when you so clearly asked me to justify my beliefs in Post #357 - and then you even reaffirmed the fact that you had asked me justify my beliefs in Post #623?

Why did you leave out Post #623 from your little list?

Could it possibly be because you knew that it proved that you had asked me to justify my beliefs?

So - despite what you claim - you did ask me to justify my beliefs and by so doing I believe that you have been very disrespectful towards me.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

My partner used to have a t-shirt that read "How dare you assume I'm straight?"

He wore it just like any other such shirt. He was from small town Indiana. More than one person made a comment such as "You're the only person I know who could wear that shirt into a red neck bar in North Vernon and get away with it."
He's no snowflake.
Tom

That's awesome.

I love shirts like that.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

View attachment 36712

I refer you to post #716.

You asked me to justify my beliefs.

 

[Jainarayan]

I refer you to post #716.

You asked me to justify my beliefs.

You’re not going to get me to either tap out and agree with you or make an ad hominem or personal attack. You’re going on and on, trying to bait me. Not going to happen. I said what I had to say, you said what you had to say, which I think completely skirted the issue. You’re repeating yourself over and over.

 

[columbus]

You’re not going to get me to either tap out and agree with you or make an ad hominem or personal attack. You’re going on and on, trying to bait me. Not going to happen. I said what I had to say, you said what you had to say, which I think completely skirted the issue. You’re repeating yourself over and over.

Pretty much this.
I don't use the <ignore> function.
But I don't necessarily read everybody's posts either. Sometimes it's just not worth the bother.
Tom