Jump to content

The cult of Trump escalated my departure from Christianity


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I agree with Dave and Josh.   Christians and political Progressives/leftists have in common the idea that the human state can be perfected.  For Christians it occurs when Heaven is reached a

What do you call a Trump supporter in a Texas boat parade?       ...       A Proud Buoy.

The cult of Trump escalated my departure from Christianity. As I watched dignity, honor, and character take a backseat to the Republican party, I started to realize how many Christians were really jus

Posted Images

  • Admin

The link I posted above is to an essay written over 100 years ago by Booker T. Washington. His perspective on this topic may be of surprisingly contemporary  interest. 

 

Here it is again:

 

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-intellectuals-and-the-boston-mob/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 hours ago, webmdave said:

The link I posted above is to an essay written over 100 years ago by Booker T. Washington. His perspective on this topic may be of surprisingly contemporary  interest. 

 

Here it is again:

 

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-intellectuals-and-the-boston-mob/

 

Indeed! 

 

It's interesting how we're redoing this conflict around 100 years later. It might as well be someone like Larry Elder versus someone like Don Lemon on CNN. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
7 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I've already said I have no idea how to fix this. But at the very least we should recognize that there is an actual problem, and should listen to, and take very seriously, those who have been, and are being, oppressed.

 

The problem being an unlevel playing field? 

 

Again, the playing field consisting of the US constitution, bill of rights, and such, IS a level playing field for all.

 

You guys are introducing lesser playing fields off to the side of constitutional rights of all citizens, and claiming that they are not level. These other playing fields are an aside to the level, fair and square, constitutional rights of all citizens.

 

Whether or not everyone makes the 'same amount of money' in life, is an aside to everyone being just as free as any other citizen. That's how the system is stacked in terms of a level playing field. People are free to pursue their dreams, period. 

 

Then we can face an aside like this: 

 

18 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I'm not sure if anyone has had this thought, and it's slightly off topic, but relates to Weezers earlier posts, but capitalism requires people at the bottom for the system to work. Imagine if everyone could become that billionaire... there would be none of the low paid workers at the bottom that actually make the system tick over. The gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing. Why? Are the poor just lazy? Well, really, there's not much difference between me and a poor person. The gap between us is insignificant compared to the gap between me and the wealthiest of even just NZ. This gap is growing and contributes to a very uneven playing field. 

 

I don't think there's any reason to expect this sort of level playing field. People are equally free, but obviously not equally capable nor equally privileged in terms of old money passing down as inheritance.

 

The bottom line is that the system works because this is how 'people work.'

 

More people will settle for the lower rung than the higher, given the opportunity to chart their own courses and do whatever they choose to do. And that demonstration is being made every day in the US. More people have lower aspirations than otherwise. More people are content with putting out little effort into growth and change, or risk for that matter. These are likely more to do with personality types than anything like gender or race. 

 

Why are intellectuals a constant minority in the world? Generation after generation? Century after century? I began to realize this reality as I got older. I was oblivious. And then in something of a denial about it. I had very idealistic views about everyone being equally capable. Before life experience began to show me otherwise. Just about people in general.

 

Everyone seems to agree that throwing money at people won't solve anything. But that's what trying to "level the field" from a financial perspective seems to suggest. You watch videos about lottery winner's stories? There's a lot of sad tales. Rags to riches to rags, just like that. Because not everyone is equally intelligent with their own finances. Or equally intelligent, for that matter.

 

There's no sweeping equality of IQ. There's no sweeping equality of natural talent for music or sports. There's no sweeping equality of business sense. There's no sweeping equality of anything EXCEPT for equal constitutional rights here in the US for all citizens, as one example of a broad sweeping type of equality. 

 

And for these reasons and more, I don't see the point of looking for or expecting any other type of sweeping equality, or level playing field as it were. It doesn't exist in reality, outside of a very narrow focus on individual human rights, to be free to choose their own paths as individuals. Having established that, people really do have to make of life what they will. They can choose to take a job for minimum wage, or they aspire towards something better. I only took a minimum wage job briefly while in high school. Never again. I usually looked for something better paying. And those jobs are always out there. Meanwhile, other people did take those minimum wage jobs. And both choices were made according to what each person was willing to settle for when job searching. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, webmdave said:

The link I posted above is to an essay written over 100 years ago by Booker T. Washington. His perspective on this topic may be of surprisingly contemporary  interest. 

 

Here it is again:

 

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-intellectuals-and-the-boston-mob/

 

Very good article, with which I agree.  But I fail to understand what that has to do with a level playing field today.  

 

That was written just before the slaughter on "Black Wall street" in 1921 in Tulsa, okla.  If you haven't done so, read that story.  Following Booker Ts advice the black community was thriving.  What did they get for it?  They got slaughtered and their part of town was burned.  My grandfather saw some of the dead bodies hanging from trees after it was over.  And America pretended it did not happen.  The attitudes and mind sets that caused that to happen, and allowed it to go unpunished, have not completely gone away.  There is no more slaughtering, but I grew up there and can tell you that many people still "throw obstacles" in the paths of Black people whenever they can.  And it is not just in Tulsa, okla.

 

People come here angry at, and "crippled" by the conditioning that goes on in religion.  And we empathize and do what we can to help them through.  Can you imagine the fear and anger that is confitioned into someone having their parents, friends, or children hanged and shot, and houses and businesses burned?  It might take a few years, or generations to work through that kind of hurt! 

 

What I am ultimately saying is, let's acknowledge the damage done, then give them encouragement, and a level playing field, and perhaps a few tools to help them work out their own salvation.  Hopefully we have grown past the survival of the fittest thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh, I agree that theoretically the constitution/rights  are a level playing field.  BIG emphasis on theoretically!   But where all of this matters is in the minds of everyday people in everyday situations.  There is NOT a level playing field there.  There is still a lot of prejudice.   A real estate agent not showing certain properties to blacks.  Getting pulled over for minor traffic violations when whites don't.  Getting shot when whites don't.  It is the day to day situations that make the important playing field.  And there is room for much improvement there.  And that is a huge job that can't be solved by legislation alone.  But how do you get to the core of the problem and change the attitudes of people?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The problem being an unlevel playing field? 

 

Again, the playing field consisting of the US constitution, bill of rights, and such, IS a level playing field for all.

 

I'm glad you have such faith in your country's foundational documents, but I'd like to point out that the bill of rights was passed in 1791, and slavery was not abolished until 1865. Moreover, the abolishion of slavery, as you know, required an ammendment to your constitution, something which has happened some 26 other times as well. What on earth makes you think that the most recent draft is the final one, which actually completely levels the playing field and establishes perfect rights for all? None of the previous ones have sufficed, as it turns out. It seems to me that there's absolutely no reason to think that what you have now is the ideal version either. It's better than it used to be, and it can probably be made better still.

 

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You guys are introducing lesser playing fields off to the side of constitutional rights of all citizens, and claiming that they are not level. These other playing fields are an aside to the level, fair and square, constitutional rights of all citizens.

 

No. I've mentioned an analagous case (the culture of racism in Canada vs the culture of racism in the US), not a lesser case.

 

My only real point is this: even if your country's documents (or my country's, for that matter) actually do succeed in guaranteeing a perfectly level playing field in principle (which I don't think they do), the facts on the ground nevertheless indicate that the playing field is not level in practice. This may mean a couple things. Either the documents are not perfect and may need to be updated, or they are simply not being properly applied, or both. I'm inclined to think it's both.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
14 hours ago, Weezer said:

People come here angry at, and "crippled" by the conditioning that goes on in religion.  And we empathize and do what we can to help them through.  Can you imagine the fear and anger that is confitioned into someone having their parents, friends, or children hanged and shot, and houses and businesses burned?  It might take a few years, or generations to work through that kind of hurt! 

 

What I am ultimately saying is, let's acknowledge the damage done, then give them encouragement, and a level playing field, and perhaps a few tools to help them work out their own salvation.  Hopefully we have grown past the survival of the fittest thinking.

 

I find comparing what we do here for former Christians worth quickly exploring.

 

Twenty years ago I left Christianity. I was  lonely, confused, disappointed, angry and wanted to connect with other former Christians. I was not aware of any venues available for me to find connection so I taught myself HTML and started this website. In other words, I made the effort to help myself and as a result recieved encouragement from others who had lived through similar experiences. 

 

However, I have been simultaneously condemned and criticized by hundreds of Christians and non-Christians alike for nearly every one of my efforts, opinions and decisions. I have been told many times I am "thinking and doing things wrong."

 

Ultimately, personal resiliency is what has sustained me.

 

I realize I can never force anyone to change their opinions about anything. When people are  emotionally invested in their position on something -- be it religion, politics, etc. --  a website discussion is unlikely to dissuade them. That is why this site is not aimed at converting anyone to any position on any "ism." This site exists only to verbally encourage former Christians that their self-discovered position  that Christianity is lacking is actually shared by others. However, beyond some verbal encouragement from others who have been in the same boat, it is up to the former believer to move past any hurt. 

 

Here is my point: If a person  remains fixated on the past, that person will never grow beyond the past. Nothing can ever change the past. It is locked forever in time. All we have is now, and wasting that "now" bemoaning the past (whether a recent personal past or distant generational past) is counterproductive to making a good life in the now. 

 

"Leveling the playing field" is one of those phrases that sparks the imagination with emotional appeal, but no one seems willing to deliniate how such a thing would be implemented in reality. A good golf course is filled with obstacles that present the same challenges equally to each and every player. A golf course, therefore, is a type of level playing field. However, obviously, each player brings his or her unique abilities and luck to the game. Some play well. Some not so well. 

 

Life, however, is not a metaphoric  golf course. All a reality-based free society can hope to do in "leveling the field" is legislate equal opportunity for its citizens. How citizens use that legislated opportunity is up to them, regardless of whether their future course ahead is smooth or rough. If more legislation is needed, then so be it. If someone doesn't like me because of my looks, then I better get over it. There is no law that says people have to like me. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

I agree with Dave and Josh.

 

Christians and political Progressives/leftists have in common the idea that the human state can be perfected.  For Christians it occurs when Heaven is reached after death, through a relationship with God via his son Jesus.  For Progressives it is achieved by Government: an expanding state and an ever-growing body of legislation and constitutional amendments.  If equality of opportunity doesn’t yield Utopia, then we must move on to “equity”, the new buzz-word, which typically is meant as something like equality of outcome.  For as long as humans are human, equality of outcome will be as elusive as the alchemist’s dream of making gold from base metals.  More and more legislation and government programs can cause as many problems as they resolve - always while adding to the national debt, of course.  

 

The pandemic of 2019-2020 has yielded a kind of hysteria in much of the world, especially the English speaking world.  Yes, racism still exists, but it is less manifest than ever before.  Yes, there are still effects from slavery and colonialism.  But by pretty much every measure, things have steadily improved, whether it’s in the US, Canada, New Zealand or wherever.  The number of people killed by police, whether they are innocent or guilty, armed or unarmed, has continually declined over the past few decades.  But we are led to believe its getting worse and that we’re in an unprecedented crisis. No, it’s getting a lot more common for these incidents to be captured on camera.  And there are plenty of people who hope to gain politically or financially by whipping up a froth of anger.  

 

It it makes no more sense for white Canadians, Americans or Kiwis to indulge in self-flagellating rituals of apology for the actions of their ancestors than it does for a citizen of Germany to feel shame for the actions of her grandparents.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TABA said:

I agree with Dave and Josh.

 

Christians and political Progressives/leftists have in common the idea that the human state can be perfected.  For Christians it occurs when Heaven is reached after death, through a relationship with God via his son Jesus.  For Progressives it is achieved by Government: an expanding state and an ever-growing body of legislation and constitutional amendments.

 

 

I profoundly disagree with this.

 

One cannot be a progressive without allowing for progress. Progress entails that we strive to make things better. It entails that we recognize when things are better now than they used to be, and that we strive to make them better still in the future. This is a struggle which never ends. There is no perfection at the end of the tunnel, because there is no end to the tunnel.

 

Very few people on the left, in my experience, believe that the human state can actually be perfected. What we believe is that it can probably be made better. That's all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

What we believe is that it can probably be made better.

 

Perhaps then the challenge is a universally agreed upon definition of "better" followed by a universally agreed upon path toward achieving that "better?" 

 

Theoretical philosphy is conceptually interesting but a bit nebulous without any clear definitions and specifically deliniated practical actions for implementation and goal achievement.

 

Let me insert a disclaimer here. I consider my opinions as nothing more than my opinions. I have changed and reversed my opinions on so many things in my life, and I agree that "the struggle never ends .... no end to the tunnel" But, I also believe that same principle applies to each person becoming better (progressing) individually. No person every really "arrives" at ultimate knowledge or truth, and  without a meaure of humble willingness  to accept the possibility of error in our thinking on any (every) topic, we risk stagnation as free agents.

 

Or, perhaps we risk  a reversion to something resembling a form of uncompromising religious dogmatism? 

 

Again: Just my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
6 hours ago, disillusioned said:


I profoundly disagree with this.
 


Vive la différence profonde! 
 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I'm glad you have such faith in your country's foundational documents, but I'd like to point out that the bill of rights was passed in 1791, and slavery was not abolished until 1865. Moreover, the abolishion of slavery, as you know, required an ammendment to your constitution, something which has happened some 26 other times as well. What on earth makes you think that the most recent draft is the final one, which actually completely levels the playing field and establishes perfect rights for all? None of the previous ones have sufficed, as it turns out. It seems to me that there's absolutely no reason to think that what you have now is the ideal version either. It's better than it used to be, and it can probably be made better still.

 

I covered most of this already. It may have been before you posted. What I was saying is that it doesn't matter that originally equal rights did not exist. The point is that corrections were made to give equal rights to minorities and women in terms of both freedom and voting. Everyone knows that it didn't start out that way. But everyone should also know that we have individual rights equalized now. Rights to vote. Rights to bear arms (unless the left changes that). Rights to free speech and expression (unless the left gets their way).

 

Perfect rights for all is one thing. Equal rights for all, being that the rights which 'currently exist,' are equal for all men, women, and minorities. Whether someone consider the rights exist perfect or not is one thing. Whether or not the currently existing rights are EQUAL all, is what we've been discussing. 

 

But let's go ahead and take your point about new or perfect rights and apply it. If and when any newly formed rights arise, will those newly formed rights then NOT be applied equally across the board to all men, women and minority groups in THIS day and age? If not, please explain how or why any new rights popping up for US citizens this century could possibly NOT be applied immediately to everyone???

 

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

Josh, I agree that theoretically the constitution/rights  are a level playing field.  BIG emphasis on theoretically!   But where all of this matters is in the minds of everyday people in everyday situations.  There is NOT a level playing field there.  There is still a lot of prejudice.   A real estate agent not showing certain properties to blacks.  Getting pulled over for minor traffic violations when whites don't.  Getting shot when whites don't.  It is the day to day situations that make the important playing field.  And there is room for much improvement there.  And that is a huge job that can't be solved by legislation alone.  But how do you get to the core of the problem and change the attitudes of people?

 

It is the day to day situations which are limited as what a central government can do. We have equal rights as far as rights go, as pointed out above. We also have anti-discrimination laws for the workplace. That's the government trying to further the level playing as much as it can manage. The rest of the post is more subjective than objective, though.

 

What you've written isn't objectively true in a universal sense. Of course their may be some prejudice people in the world. If they break the law they can face consequences. Other than that, they are people with their own opinions. Trying to force them to conform to your opinion is a type of authoritarian rule.  

 

Lots of whites are pulled over for minor traffic violations. More white's than blacks get shot by police annually: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

 

It's been decreasing into 2020, while maintaining a steady trend of less blacks than whites shot by police annually. It's a matter of objective fact that more white's are shot by police. And the same about minor traffic violations probably.

 

This is what I mean about subjective based political views. They're emotional and subjective, with little no basis in objective reality. They are 'feel good,' or in this case, 'feel bad,' oriented emotion driven opinions. The claims are not universally true, or even true against basic statistics checks. 

 

You've been very nice and a good sport in these potentially heated exchanges. Thank you for allowing me to spout off and give my opinions without coming unglued or getting too mad at me for it. And thanks to everyone else for doing the same. Our old ToT was a dumpster fire. Our new ToT seems to be on the right foot in terms of having these heated discussions at more or less civil tones. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Where in nature may anything like "equality" be found?

 

Where, in nature, may anything like pizza be found? Doesn't mean we shouldn't have it...

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

But let's go ahead and take your point about new or perfect rights and apply it. If and when any newly formed rights arise, will those newly formed rights then NOT be applied equally across the board to all men, women and minority groups in THIS day and age? If not, please explain how or why any new rights popping up for US citizens this century could possibly NOT be applied immediately to everyone???

 

 

This wasn't exactly my point, but whatever. It looks like we just fundamentally disagree on a couple points. First, I do not think that your constitution as it is is perfect in its guarantees of the rights of all citizens. There are some cases where the constitution was amended to deal with new rights, and others where it was amended to deal with rights that already existed. I don't see any reason to think that either of these processes is, or should be, over. Second, it is very clear at this point that you think that a better job of applying equal rights across the board is being done in practice than do I. I don't think we're likely to make any headway arguing about this, so I'll leave it there.

 

One last thought: I think the idea that politics/political decisions/policy/whatever should be entirely objective is completely misguided. Politics is fundamentally about what people want. It has always been thus. Statistics are one thing, and lived experience is another. Both matter. Both inform political decisions. To take subjectivity out of politics would be to do away with democracy and move towards dictatorship, where politics as such do not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Where, in nature, may anything like pizza be found? Doesn't mean we shouldn't have it...

 

Equal opportunity and liberty for all, that is the charter and purpose of the United States of America.

 

Legislating a thing is not the same as making it so.

None of us are "equal", we are all unique.

 

Government exists for one valid purpose... to protect the rights of the individual.

As you attempt to impose upon government any attempt to bring about anything else, it must be at the detriment of that single charter and purpose, protecting the rights of the individual.

 

This is because government creates no value.

For that reason, before government can give anything to one, it must first take that value from another, take it from the one who created or earned it.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that most of what I am saying did not come from my "intellectual" or professional training, which I think has been implied.  Most of it has come from life experience and seeing what goes on with black friends, coworkers, people at church, college, in the military, etc.  Most of it before going to college. 

 

Most of the problems I saw were not "illegal".  One small example.  As an auto mechanic just out of highschool I was working on a black guys car to help him make it run better so he could win a drag race.  I got cussed at by fellow mechanics for helping that "nigger" make his car run better.   That is a symbol of the thinking that still runs in our society.  And it is not just about the blacks.  I had a similar reaction when helping a member of a poor, uneducated white family in town with some family members who were mentally challenged.  It is a societal problem that sees certain groups as inferior, (tribalism) and there is a segment of society doing their best to keep things the way they are.  And others who don't throw up roadblocks to change, but turn their heads and say, "well, that's just the way things are.  There's nothing we can do."

 

Another true story.  A relative diagnoised with mental illness was written off as "crazy."  The thinking by most family members was that is "just the way she is".  A few years later it was discovered that she had been sexually abused as a child, and that incest was going on in her present family.  She never told anyone because as a child the only way she could cope was by totally blocking out any recognition of the experiences, as a child, and later in her own marriage.  She was conditioned by her early experience, and so were some of her own children.  They learned to cope by blocking out certain realities.

 

The point I am making is that things can be going on that we do not see (or want to see) that is influencing why people are the way they are.  Eventually one child in the family was able to break through the denial and report what was going on.  Some people in our family never believed the reality of what was going on, and even labeled the child who "spilled the beans" as being a trouble maker.   They had a need to deny reality and pretent things were okay, just the way they were.  And by the way, out of that large family she is the one who turned out to be the most "normal" one.

 

We can't go back and change what happened, and it does no good to blame, but hopefully we can keep our minds open to possibilities and develop some empathy, and although the playing field will never be completely level,  individually decide to do what we can to keep it level enough so that as many as possible can play lifes game.  At least, not throwing obstacles in their path.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a fool could expect to live in a peaceful pleasant society by oppression of any segment of the population, majority or minority.

 

The implied and expected purpose of any society is the betterment of all.

Our lives improve when the lives of those around us improve.

 

In this modern age there is plenty and abundance, material wealth as never seen or imagined in the history of mankind. If a portion of the society is systematically denied because of greed or avarice, it can only result in decline and degradation for all, over time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Government exists for one valid purpose... to protect the rights of the individual.

As you attempt to impose upon government any attempt to bring about anything else, it must be at the detriment of that single charter and purpose, protecting the rights of the individual.

 

This is because government creates no value.

For that reason, before government can give anything to one, it must first take that value from another, take it from the one who created or earned it.

 

 

The history of political philosophy is littered with different opinions on the bolded, and the related matters that you mention below it. I see that you have an opinion too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, webmdave said:

 

Perhaps then the challenge is a universally agreed upon definition of "better" followed by a universally agreed upon path toward achieving that "better?" 

 

 

I don't personally think that either of these things needs to be (or even can be) universal. Like you, though, I recognize when I'm simply expressing my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Whoa, a lot of posting going on overnight. I don't have time for an in depth reply to what's been said, so here are some quick thoughts (Literally this is what crossed my mind as I was reading)

 

12 hours ago, TABA said:

Christians and political Progressives/leftists have in common the idea that the human state can be perfected

 

I think this is a strawman. There might be some who think that the human state can be perfected, but I've never run across them. Most of us "political Progressives/leftists" merely think that we can improve constantly. Isn't this a 'rightist' ideal as well? That an individual should constantly strive to become a better version of themselves? We 'leftists' (and I only mean here in this thread... the 'left' covers a huge swathe of opinion - more on this later) also think that society as a whole can improve as well. I don't subscribe to the idea that humans are ultimately evil creatures who can only work for their own good. This is a religious type view, that ironically is held by at least some on the right side of politics.

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Rights to bear arms (unless the left changes that). Rights to free speech and expression (unless the left gets their way).

 

This kinda ticked me off for several reasons. One, Josh, I think you are above this childish habit that infects the interwebs of talking about the "left" as if the "left" is a single position. We could make analogies by saying that woman have the rights to abortion (Unless the right gets their way) or science is taught in the classroom (unless the right gets their way) We here all know that it is only SOME on the right who hold that view - some who are in power right now! Do I think that the "right" is going to remove some rights? Possible, but unlikely. I think most rightists, like most leftists (yes I am using these terms sarcastically. If you can beat the mob, then join them) want to ensure the continuation of these rights.

 

So lets rise above simplistic terms like "the left" or "the right" as if everyone left or right of some arbitrary line all have the same opinions and goals. 

 

The final quick thought is regarding the constitution. There seems to be an inordinate amount of reverence given to it, almost religious in ferver by many I've noticed. Now I think it was a great document for its time. But its a flawed document written by humans, and if we know anything about stuff written by humans is that its not perfect and should always be subject to review, criticism, and change. If you aren't willing to ceed this then essentially you are treating a human written document like the bible. And we know where that leads.

 

Coming up... I want to hit on the idea of the "level playing field" because I think that the main point as I see it is being missed. More later.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

What do you call a Trump supporter in a Texas boat parade?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

A Proud Buoy.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Lots of whites are pulled over for minor traffic violations. More white's than blacks get shot by police annually: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

 

It's been decreasing into 2020, while maintaining a steady trend of less blacks than whites shot by police annually. It's a matter of objective fact that more white's are shot by police. And the same about minor traffic violations probably.

 

I'm going to be kind here and say this is disingenous Josh.

 

More whites are shot annually by police? Really? Thats your argument? Come on bud you are smarter than this. Any high school student with a basic statistical knowledge can see what's wrong with this argument. Lets not beat about the block. Its utter horseshit.

 

I should not need to point this out: There are more whites than blacks in the US... like WAY more. So of course more whites as a total will get shot etc as a result of having more absolute population numbers. The total numbers by themselves tell us little useful information. The rate per million ( or whatever metric you want to use) of blacks killed by police is higher than the rate of white people for the same metric. 

 

The question is why?? 

 

Ironically the article you linked states this! Perhaps reading what you link before posting silly arguments would be a good idea? This is the same argument my parents use. I am much dissapoint 😔

Link to post
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.