Akvod said:
What a vague and preachy statement. Fine, people are equal in terms of their human nature and inner potential? |
of course.. but in the biggest picture, it doesnt play in very well
Akvod said:
What a vague and preachy statement. Fine, people are equal in terms of their human nature and inner potential? |
of course.. but in the biggest picture, it doesnt play in very well
Xxain said:
of course.. but in the biggest picture, it doesnt play in very well |
*sips coffee*
Kay, but you still can't deny that you're either imposing a double standard, or following the illogical argument I laid out earlier.
Xxain said:
contribute or get out. |
Read my other post before you can cry some more.
- Wasteland - The Mission.
Akvod said:
*sips coffee* Kay, but you still can't deny that you're either imposing a double standard, or following the illogical argument I laid out earlier. |
double standard?
Xxain said:
double standard? |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.
Hence why KylieDog was bringing the point that we all humans.
Akvod said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group. Hence why KylieDog was bringing the point that we all humans. |
I aliitle lost at your point vs mine? what exactly are dabting agaisnt.
KylieDog said:
|
your just twistng my words. we are equal in the fatc that w are all humans.. but not in life.
Color
religion
gender
sexual preferances
Things like this dictate how we are treated in society, it not about being better or worse because noone is better than the other at the core, but layers like the ones above sepertate us.
I am not arguing for or against this thread only laying the reality out why its like this. its wrong? of course it is but it just the way it is.
Xxain said:
I aliitle lost at your point vs mine? what exactly are dabting agaisnt. |
I don't know. Why don't you tell me what exactly you're dabting for?
Akvod said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group. Hence why KylieDog was bringing the point that we all humans. |
Well yeah it's a double standard, but there's a good reason for it with centuries of linguistic baggage.
And white people don't really have anything to gain by using the word. It's like women saying "hey why can't I piss in a urinal?!??" The answer is "you don't have a penis." This is the same issue (even though some women do it anyway). There's just no reason to argue it because there's nothing to win.
Honestly, the word is much better off now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Now you can actually say "nigger" in a book without it getting banned. You just can't pull a Michael Richards and repeatedly scream it into a microphone at a group of blacks. I mean, it's perfectly legal, but not too smart.
It's like... Marty McFly can call himself chicken, but I fucking DARE you to call him a chicken. There's no reason to call him a chicken unless you WANT what's going to happen afterwards.
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Well yeah it's a double standard, but there's a good reason for it with centuries of linguistic baggage. And white people don't really have anything to gain by using the word. It's like women saying "hey why can't I piss in a urinal?!??" The answer is "you don't have a penis." This is the same issue (even though some women do it anyway). There's just no reason to argue it because there's nothing to win. Honestly, the word is much better off now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Now you can actually say "nigger" in a book without it getting banned. You just can't pull a Michael Richards and repeatedly scream it into a microphone at a group of blacks. I mean, it's perfectly legal, but not too smart. It's like... Marty McFly can call himself chicken, but I fucking DARE you to call him a chicken. There's no reason to call him a chicken unless you WANT what's going to happen afterwards. |
Thank you Rubang! are views are basically the same your just doing a better job at putting it togheter
its the unspoken law just leave it alone.