No, why would anybody have gotten the idea that you’re excusing Farrakhan to any degree?
I guess that’s the polite tone you’d like to see when people respond to you, right?
Why do you hate gay people so much? Where do you get off calling me a liar, when I’m only reacting to my people’s oppression in this country? You’re no better than a common eskimo!
Oh, there’s also the fact that I am not, in fact, lying about you:
You give Farrakhan a pass on his blatant anti-semitism, because black people have been oppressed in this country. You don’t give David Duke a pass on his blatant anti-semitism, because white people have not been oppressed in this country. You’re operating on a double standard, here, and it’s one based solely on race. And you accuse us of having “unexamined racist tendencies?” Like hell. You’ve got racist tendencies out the wazoo, and you’re trying to justify them by pretending that they’re normative. Hate to break it to you, sister, but that shit doesn’t fly around here.
[sub]NB to interested readers: I do not have any animus against eskimos, women, or eskimo women. Statements to the contrary were intended solely as illustrative of the moral bankruptcy of Fearless Reader’s position. No offence intended to any other party.[/sub]
Only a racist pigdog would call them Eskimos instead of Inuit! 
But I guess it’s not as bad if a gay man calls them that. After all you could be a white straight man calling them that.
Thankfully most of can understand the use of sarcasm to point out a logical fallacy.
Fearless Reader, do you ever concede a point?
Your own quote shows that Miller is correct and you are wrong.
The logic you used to give Farrakhan a slide is the same logic Miller was throwing back at you to illustrate that it is not a valid argument.
I think you admitted that Farrakhan has made Hate speech. He has done so for over 30 years. Probably longer. He is a hateful man.
No, I requested that you produce on your promised Giuliani “soundbites” so we could see if there was any justification for linking him with Farrakhan. You could not supply any quotes constituting racial hate speech, never mind remarks comparable to the bile that has issued from Farrakhan. As a demonstration of your vaunted integrity, will you now admit your error?
If you had said that actions occurring in NYC government during the Giuliani administration had poisoned race relations to an extent comparable to what Farrakhan’s remarks had produced, you’d have had a more defensible argument. Still wrong, but far less so than attributing remarks to Guiliani that he never made.
Correct. And Farrakhan has promoted himself into a national figure and racial spokesman. He has sought and received a vast amount of publicity. His race-baiting has a national stage.
And you seem to be forgetting that Al Sharpton, apart from being a national figure has run for major office on numerous occasions and apparently still has political aspirations. By your own logic, his words and actions deserve close scrutiny.
Don’t sell yourself short. 
Finally, you’re getting the hang of the Pit (I was wondering when you might look up, see that marquee over your head and realize that all is not kindness and gentility within). If you stick around, you might be more comfortable with Great Debates - though even there, tarring with a broad brush, misrepresentation and evasiveness are likely to garner a less than enthusiastic reception.
Jim, do you ever address a point?
How did I give Farrakhan a pass? And where will this alleged pass take him? I don’t see him being hailed as a hero, or talked up as a possible candidate for President. Or even dog-catcher. How is acknowledging that his anger comes from actual situations, whereas Duke is only angry about the possibility of oppression, giving him a pass? Isn’t that true? It doesn’t absolve him from responsibility for his actions.
And I wasn’t even thinking about his anti-semitism in particular, but only his anger about oppression by white society in general. Why is he anti-semitic? Can anyone shed light on the apparent feud between blacks and jews? I know there are local tensions here in NYC, but if there is a history beyond that I am ignorant about it. How about someone tries to fight ignorance and expounds on it?
But it’s not only about Farrakhan, it’s about recognizing black anger at discrimination and oppression. As I said, he might be an asshole as an individual. But can you deny that he speaks for and to his followers? How is it a good idea to ignore that by dismissing him?
Do we want to solve problems or just score ego points?
The double standard exists. Should I ignore it?
In some ways, GD is even “worse” than the Pit. They’ll insult you and tear you to pieces, but they’ll do so by coming a hair’s breadth from actually flaming you. That’s one of the reasons I don’t post there more often, because some Debateizens have flaming-without-flaming down to an artform.
Here I can at least say “Well fuck you too!” in response
…
You didn’t just try to suggest that Farrakhan would have a reason to be anti-Semitic, did you? Do you ask the same for people who hate blacks?
And to put a finer point on it, the substance of most of Farrakhan’s messages are, indeed, not ‘just’ anti-white, but anti-semitic. He claims that Jewish people control the blacks in this country. His anger is channeled into his claims that the oppression which went on and goes on is due to “The Jews”. He has also gone on record as saying that whites aren’t fully human, and they have to evolve to get ot that point.
Being ignorant of these things would tend to suggest that you are only defending Farrakhan because he is black. You do realize that’s a racist position, right?
How are you so certain that Duke’s anger doesn’t spring from actual situations? I don’t know jack about his life, maybe he’s simply an oppotunist playing up on racial tensions to advance himself, or some sort of a genuine sociopath. Or maybe he’s faced genuine hardships in his life, and has reacted by finding an external source for his anger and frustrations. The KKK got a lot of traction in the past because they addressed very real concerns about the disenfranchisement of poor, rural whites. Of course, the way they addressed these concerns was by stringing up random black folk from trees, but we shouldn’t let their moral shortcomings distract us from the validity of their concerns, right?
One can recognize that black anger is valid, and that black oppression exsists, and still write Farrakhan off as a useless, racist piece of shit. It’s only idiots like you and Bob_Loblaw who insist on creating some sort of a dichotomy there.
Me, I don’t take someone’s race into consideration when I condemn them for racism. Louis Farrakhan may have faced more genuine hardship and discrimination in his life than David Duke. But so what? There’s no justification sufficient to excuse racism. Any attempt to create one, even if couched in terms of overall disapproval, is itself the very essence of racism.
Ignore it? You embody it!
I told you why I don’t do comparisons. That’s your agenda, babe.
I believe Giuliani caused more harm and racial divisiveness than Farrakhan. Maybe Farrakhan would have if he could have, but he didn’t and doesn’t have that power at his disposal. Talk is cheap, actions speak. Farrakhan can’t be compared under those circumstances. What national stage do you see him holding? Any real possibility of him holding office in any capacity?
You prefer to see Giuliani’s comments and actions after the Dorismond shooting as merely “insensitivity”, and not race-poisoning. You don’t think his actions qualify as examples of racial divisiveness.
That is an opinion, an opinion I and many others do not share. Which goes back to my point about objectivity. Who gets to decide? Who can claim objectivity?
Miller just a clarification, but Bob_Loblaw is not the OP of this thread, that was Bob Loblaw.
Um, I believe I will rest my case here, your Honor. :rolleyes:
You just prove that you’re more interested in ego points than a discussion. Way to go Jackass. What a neat solution to avoid addressing my points. I guess it takes you back - to high school.
Whoops! Sorry, bob_.
On the basis of your demonstrated level of immaturity, yes, it does remind me of high school.
Not even there, however, do I remember encountering anyone so hilariously oblivious to self-contradiction.
You sexist! Don’t you realize she’s a woman? Obviously we can’t judge contradiction on anything approaching an objective scale, especially since women have a long history of oppression.
I still think Farrakhan had something fairly darn significant to do with killing Malcom X. That’s a pretty big point right there, for me. What do you think?
It still seems that, for the most part, you’re deflecting your defense of Farrakhan by trying to make the thread turn toward how Duke and Rudi are racist scum. And possibly gay. (It’s kind of hard to keep up with you here.)
And great sidehand with the high school reference. ZING! Jesus, you’re even taking the occasional potshot at the few people trying to defend you. I just can’t keep from checking this thread a few times a day. :eek:
Translation: A pathetic old man’s version of “I know you are but what am I?”
Anything but address my points, right Jack?