Why are minorities immune to criticism while whites are not?

Sorry, ain't buying it. I personally know quite a few people (brown and black) who started life in the west with large families and literally not a single cent. They lived in the poorest of the poor neighbourhoods, and didn't even speak the local language. They worked multiple cleaning jobs (or anything not requiring skills or language), saved every cent, and spent all their spare time backing up their kids' public school education. They spent several hours every day sitting down with their kids and making sure they were ahead of the curve. They didn't smoke or drink, or go on holidays, or buy new clothes, or big tvs, or gamble, or waste money in any way. By the time their kids graduated (often as duxes), they could afford to move to slightly better neighbourhoods. Their kids went to top universities, and most are now doctors, lawyers, economists, earning huge sums.

Poverty is a choice, in rich western nations with free education.

 

Excellent point, but the liberals don't want to accept personal responsibility. One thing to add - poverty is also not all about stupidity. In large part it is, but there are people who just prefer to live life as leisure seekers. Which I have no problem with as long as they don't receive any welfare or taxpayer funds of any kind. People can live a life like that if they choose, but I'm not working to pay for it, nor should anyone else.

 

Peer pressure, inability to get education for multiple reasons, desperation, and lack of economic knowledge.

 

How is it cognitive dissonance? Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs.

Here is the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution again:
" neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

Involuntary servitude is a definition of slavery. Here you go. This is from the Colins Dictionary:

slavery (ˈsleɪvər&#618

noun

1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced to work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

I suppose you'll tell me the Collins Dictionary's disgusting and appalling and minimising "actual slavery" too, and the Jews in the Nazi work camps weren't "actual slaves" because Hitler didn't buy them at a slave market?

To my mind, cognitive dissonance is being able to distinguish between "actual slavery" and a little-bit-slavery-but-not-very-much-because-they're-felons-probably-rapists-and-murderers-and-that-doesn't-count slavery.

 

It's dissonance because you're trying to equate due process of law and appropriate punishment to actually owning another human being unlawfully.

The definition is NOT met because no prisoner is under subjection of another person, they are incarcerated under rule of law by purview and authority of the state.

Apparently, according to your definition, both employment and marriage are equivalent to slavery as #3.

Again, your attempt to paint incarceration as slavery and draw any kind of parallel between the two is both ridiculous and insulting to those who are or were slaves.

But lets go with your assertion and see where it takes us.

Let's compare the treatment of incarcerated "slaves" in majority white countries to majority non-white countries in the rest of the world.

Please compare and contrast how prisoners are treated in the US vs the rest of those countries.

Wanna get back to us on the results of that?

 

Seems that you're just trying to label me. If you want to find out how I feel about religion you can just ask.

 

I am not trying to equate anything with anything. I quoted the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution and the Collins Dictionary definition of slavery. If you don't like the dictionary's definition, take it up with them.

You are aware there was a nationwide prison strike in America about this, aren't you? It was the biggest in US history. I'd suggest a few more people than me read the 13th Amendment that way. Google it.

And no. Why would I equate employment and marriage with slavery? The worker can tell the boss to shove it and the spouse can pack their bags and leave. Prisoners can't. Nor can they withold their labour.

It doesn't only happen in the US, it happens in China, too. In fact, the US government have been very vocal critics of the forced labour in Chinese prisons.

I did try to find other white majority countries that force involuntary servitude and google drew a blank, so I don't know why you're talking about the " treatment of incarcerated "slaves" in majority white countries...": it doesn't happen in "majority white countries", it only happens in one: the USA. It doesn't happen in all US states, either. Some states refuse to apply the 13th Amendment.

And why have you gone back to comparing US prisons with those overseas? It isn't relevant.

 

Oh but you are.

You're trying to say that there's slavery in the rest of the world, but the US has it too. Which, of course, is a ridiculous comparison between the punishment a murderer faces in the US and a 12 year old sex slave in Pakistan.

Well apparently everything is slavery. I'm a slave to PF, I'm a slave to my job, my children have me enslaved, blah blah.

What you're doubling down on is ludicrous.

Well lets take a look at the definition you gave:

Looks like we're all slaves.

You want to go with trying to infer prisoners in Mexico or Pakistan or India are treated better than prisoners in the US?

The reason Google drew a blank is because incarceration for crimes is not slavery, and to suggest it is is preposterous.

 

The people I spoke of started life as dirt poor farmers, with zero education and zero economic knowledge. The ONLY difference between them and those who choose poverty is that they (my friends) recognised that free education is the golden ticket.

And peer pressure isn't a thing unless you want it to be. You have to give it permission to control you, before it can control you. It's a cop out. An excuse for inaction.

- - - Updated - - -

Ditto. I don't care what able-bodied people do, as long as they fund it themselves. And agreed, poverty has nothing to do with stupidity, and everything to do with laziness.

 

Whew! That was a rant and a half, and you introduced a new character, too, a 12 year old Pakistani sex slave.

This is my last post on this because you just keep going more and more over the top. God only knows what kind of character you'll bring in next, since you've already dragged in rapists, murderers and 12 year old sex slaves.

The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution says:

"neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

Throughout the United States, particularly in the South, this Amendment has been used to force incarcerated felons to work against their will. This is called involuntary servitude. If you dispute it's called that, read the 13th Amendment again. The Collins Dictionary defines involuntary servitude- being forced to work against your will - as slavery. Here's the Collins Dictionary again:

slavery (ˈsleɪvər&#618
n

1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

The biggest prison strike in US history was held nationwide on this issue. Clearly, It isn't just me and the Collins Dictionary that interpret the 13th Amendment as legitimising slavery: millions of Americans do, too. Perhaps most telling is the number of states that have rejected the 13th Amendment and refuse to use involuntary servitude in their prisons.

And we're done.

 

I didn't introduce anything new, what is it you think that chart represents?

You're the one comparing prisoners watching TV and lifting weights to those in sex slavery, caste slavery, and other forms of actual slavery in the rest of the world.

Yours is the argument that is best described as a "rant", and an illogical one at that.

 

How do you feel about religion?

 

Religion is fascinating, I appreciate many different religious writings for their artistic and philosophical merit, however I don't subscribe to any religion and I disagree with fundamentalism. I have absolutely no problem with anyone practicing any faith they wish, but I don't want my taxes paying to promote it. I highly value the separation of church and state.

 

Each country? Or just the ones in the EU?

- - - Updated - - -

I stand by my point, you'd be dead if you were that hated.

 

I'll bear all this in mind while as I remember that there's more non-whites in the world than whites.

Also, good leadership and strategy win wars, too. Technology is only as useful as the person wielding it. You can have all the guns in the world and still get beat if you don't know how to use one.

 

Seems that you're trying to avoid answering my questions. Religion? I'm asking you about politics. You seem to be wanting to change the subject in another attempt to avoid answering my simple questions. I find that a lot of people who claim that they're independents or apolitical aren't truly. Because someone can claim all day they're not on either side, but if they vote for one side or the other, then they're empowering that side, plain and simple. And regardless, even if someone does vote back and forth, if they continue to support establishment candidates, then all they're doing is empowering the establishment and maintaining the status quo, while they act as if they're above it all. Yeah, whatever...

 

The countries inside the EU are still countries, and agreed in unison to the bureaucratic rule by the EU, so far. Although rebellions have started with Brexit, and LePen is in front now in France.

You won't give up a refuted point, will you? Again, hatred is not the only factor in determining if you'll attack someone. Lots of radical Islamic terrorists would like to attack us, but they can't get close enough, or don't have the firepower.

 

While true, that's a Straw Man in the current discussion.

Again, more Straw Men. While it's true that strategy is important, those with greater technology and greater resources almost always win wars. And typically those that do have greater tech also have better strategy. See Iraq 2004. And no one believes for a second that modern soldiers don't know how to use guns. To even try and make such a point is patently absurd on its face. Using a gun requires a relatively simple skill set.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you on that point. I wish you would be as clear and forthcoming with your views on political philosophy.

 

Okay.

And you think a group of non-whites living here in America couldn't just drive into an all-white neighborhood and shoot it up if they wanted to?

The gun use was a metaphor. My point was that knowing how to use technology is just as crucial, if not more so than simply having it.

 

Yes you do, but you are just wrong. We are that hated, and still standing.

Because no one possesses that capability.

 

I'll refer you to my previous post.

 

Yes, your incorrect post.

 

Still another right wing thread that posts its topic via a leading question.


Please re-phrase your title in an objective manner which does not automatically assume that your thesis is correct.

 

You mean the one other I point out where anyone could go on a "kill whitey" campaign if they really wanted to, but won't.

 

Yes that one where you are incorrect, because no one is capable.