Rob's House

My favorite is the "power theory." If I'm discriminated against, beaten, robbed, or killed by a minority it isn't racism because other people who look like me have more power in society than people who share the ethnicity of the person who wronged me.

What I learned today is that if a black baker in Harlem bakes a Black Panthers cake he is rightfully obligated to bake a KKK cake if so requested. Otherwise he's discriminating based on race and should be subjected to public shaming as well as legal repercussions.

It's actually a very common tactic that's most often used by those defending a losing argument. If you can't defend your point you defend a point you never made and that no one was arguing. It allows you to save face because you don't have to admit you were wrong and people who agree with your position will usually roll with it anyway out of solidarity even if they see what you're doing.

Do you realize that every time you try to defend your position you instead put forth a new position and leave your previous position undefended?

Because he opposes gay marriage. Refusing to make a cake that celebrates gay marriage is not the same thing as refusing to serve gay people. I'm guessing he wouldn't make a gay wedding cake for straight customers either.

Not necessarily. He didn't refuse to make cakes for gay people, he refused to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage. There's a difference.

I'm coming around to your way of thinking.

Your inability to take a joke is part of the reason. Your inability to stake out a position and defend it is the bigger one. Of course, you'd serve yourself well to take your lumps and learn how to debate effectively. And although I said that somewhat in jest, I do believe the liberalism you and many others subscribe to is based on articles of faith more akin to religious belief than scientific study.

Liberalism.

The discussion wasn't about whether there was a "larger problem," it was about the actions of one person not being terribly probative on the topic. You changed arguments midstream to one of whether there is a "larger problem" without ever defining what that problem is.

How is that even remotely relevant to the point you were making? You were arguing that the actions of one person inform us of the culture at large, now you're arguing murder rates do. Well no ****. That's basically the opposite of your initial argument.

Everyone is part of the larger culture. That's not the same as being indicative or representative of it.

It really doesn't, but if it gives you some sense of moral superiority to think so then who am I to deprive you the pleasure. Just don't tout yourself as a disciple of science because you've just stated unequivocally that you have contempt for the scientific method. You've also shown your ignorance of the story you're exploiting to advance your agenda; an agenda I would say is religious in nature.

1. Who said it was? On a side note, I have no respect for those who have respect for everyone. Not everyone deserves respect. 2. The actions of 1 person tell us nothing about the society at large. To say otherwise displays a disrespect for reason, logic, and science.

I don't understand the contempt for drunk people. Obviously drunkenness increases the risk, but who's never crushed a box of beer while shooting off fireworks?

I take this to mean the kids you know are open to socialist rhetoric and display strict adherence to political correctness.

Question: What does it mean to be spiritual but not religious?

Black lives only matter when white people end them.

The story's not about church attendance, it's about religious belief and conviction.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/teens-are-fleeing-religion-like-never-before-massive-new-study-exposes-religions-decline/ Truth be told, they're not fleeing religion, they're fleeing the church in favor of a secular religion with a different preacher.

That he thinks "slaves had dignity" means the same thing as "slavery was dignified" tells you everything you need to know about him. I wonder if Toby Keith called Obama a clown in black face if it would prove how racist the south is and prompt calls for boycotts.

I think you know you're being dishonest. It's about the equivalent of someone saying they don't like New Edition and you interpreting it as him saying he doesn't like black people. I mean, the members of New Edition were black, he said he doesn't like them, hence, he said he doesn't like black people.

Say there's an outbreak of a deadly, highly contagious, fast-acting plague. Would you be against putting those infected in quarantine?

You genuinely don't see the flaw in what you just did?

I don't. If you don't wear your seat belt you only endanger yourself. If you don't vaccinate your kids you endanger others.