Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by wegs, Apr 6, 2020.
It's always more parsimonious to suspect a horse rather than a zebra..
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Although it's sort of appropriate in a paranormal thread.
There's a lot of overlap between the two genres.
I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about God as a possible explanation for a ghost sighting. It would hardly make sense to start of thread in the religion section about God as a ghost.
The gist of the conversation here is offering alternate explanations for the ghost explanation. I offered up God.
You're not trying to cancel me are you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You’re so silly, lol God as a ghost.
I hesitate to bring the topic of God into this thread though, as things go off the rails rather quickly. But you would never do that, would you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Btw, is your avatar one of your paintings?
Yes, regarding the avatar. The shark in the old avatar was my photograph as well.
You have to admit that God (though unlikely) is more likely than a ghost. OK, I almost choked saying that. God and ghosts are both nonsense but God has a better track record among the masses. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wasn't the Trinity "Father Son and Holy Ghost" until was changed to Holy Spirit?
Don't see much difference
So there is hope for you yet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For me it would be a unknown bump noise. Ghost as a cause would not be in my top 10 billion list of what it might be
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why do you think people feel you’re a racist on here? Are you a racist?
I can change topics too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Whew, sooo glad you think so.
Yea, houses tend to “settle,” and it just feels a bit startling - I tend to think ghosts (if they exist) can be seen (orbs, dark shadowy beings, etc) and not heard. My spin on ghost ‘lore.
I didn't change the topic. It was about ghosts. Most people said they didn't think a ghost was involved (including you). I said the same thing.
People think I'm a racist because they are emotional (and stupid in some cases).
Half the people aren't from the U.S. and don't understand what "Black Lives Matter" the organization is all about (it isn't about black lives and police shootings).
Some are just wrong on the facts. It's a fact that 52% of all homicides in the U.S. are committed by those with black skin. It's a fact that police are more likely to be shot by a black man than for a black man to be shot by police.
It's a fact that more unarmed white people are shot by the police than are black people.
It's a fact that after the legal barriers were removed in the 60's and 70's everything else is about group change. All groups go through it if allowed. Black intercity populations have not been allowed to face the reality of their decision making.
There is a reason that Jason Riley decided to write a book called "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder For Blacks to Succeed".
All that many of the name callers can say is to call any white person a racist who disagrees with them and any black person an Uncle Tom or coon.
Make no mistake about it, history will be on my side on this one.
Even if we may disagree (on whatever topic), you don’t back down from your position. But, anyway...
Why should someone back down from a position unless they are wrong?
I would be pretty shallow to take such a strong position (which I've obviously thought about and researched) and then back down just because someone called me a racist.
Intercity black populations would be much better off (as they actually were even in the 50's compared to today) without all the excuse making. The middle class black populations have gained tremendously. The intercity populations are much worse off.
Once the U.S. supported Israel enough for them to not be defeated by hostile neighbors we should have left them alone. The Middle East would be much better off and the U.S. would be viewed as an honest broker.
As it is, we've created a "monster" and Gaza pays the price. It's no different in the inner cities. "Helping" isn't helping. It doesn't work in Africa and it doesn't work here.
Well, a lot of people who reside in the same country as you, disagree with your sentiments. And, that's just it. Why is there such a stark gap in perceptions?
We have a small, one-sided audience in this forum and some aren't even listening to my actual viewpoint (they are making up their own interpretation of what I must think).
You said that you didn't think I was racist. You think I've just had a charmed life. Therefore, why does everyone disagree with you?
Tiassa has had some harsh things to say about you in the past. Should you therefore agree with Tiassa?
I don't think you are intentionally racist. But I also think that you have willfully and deliberately kept yourself blind to many of the issues that have led to BLM. You are certainly not alone; there are a great many people like you, people who do not treat minorities differently but also believe that there is no significant racism or bigotry against them, and anyone who protests against said bigotry or racism is stupid, or emotional, or "out to lunch" or whatever.
This has been going on for decades, even well before the 1960's. "They have their freedom; what else do they want?" "They are well taken care of; if they hate their place in society they are welcome to go back. That's freedom!" "There's no prejudice here; blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites. That is 100% not racist. It's the same for both!" And they believed that as firmly as you did.
No, you've added the bigoted bits into your interpretation of how I think...."they can go back", "what else do 'they' want", etc.
It's the attempt to make a group a "victim" and to ignore cultural poor decision making entirely even when it has much more to do with outcomes than with the "micro-aggressions" being sought out.
Every group has gone though the same things. The Irish and the Italians had their inner city problems. They were violent but grew out of that. They didn't downplay education or call civil behavior "acting white".
Large portions of the black population don't do those things either and they have progressed. Those that haven't, haven't. You won't be happy until there is no racism and that state does exist anywhere. You can't wait to take self-responsibility for outcome until there is no racism.
The facts simply aren't on your side.
I didn't say you thought that way. I said that your type of thinking - "they're not discriminated against, they have rights!" - has been going on for decades. Even when, by law, blacks could not marry whites or attend the same schools as whites.
Again, I am not saying that you claim that blacks should not be able to marry whites. I am saying that your approach is the same as theirs - any problems they have are their own perceptions and not reality.
That's because that group were victims.
Yes. But having police be mean to them is a little different than being bought and sold, and having their children sold away at a tidy profit - don't you think?
That's pretty accurate, yes. That, IMO, is a great goal. Odd that you think that is so strange.
In some places, yes, it does.
No - but you can work towards ending racism, just as you can work towards ending war, and violence, and disease, and poverty. You will never end those things 100%. But the best of humanity has tried to end those things - and we are all better off for it.
I am quite content that both the facts and history are on my side. I am fine with you disagreeing with that.
Of course, we are all against war, poverty and violence. Those are great goals. We don't stop all other progress until those things are zero however.
Put it this way, almost every statistic regarding black/white categories were better before "liberal" progress and no that's not saying we should go back before the legislation of the 60's and 70's. Talking about equality in outcomes is flawed. It's never happened anywhere.
It's saying that since them, the approach hasn't worked. There were more black fathers in homes, more marriages, more black entrepreneurs, much less violence before all this "progress".
People didn't talk about "acting white", poo poo education, not value proper speaking, prison culture, etc. That only came about after "we" focused on "helping" those who presumably couldn't help themselves.
What has Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Black Lives Matter done that was positive to make the inner city problems better. They are much worse now. Those organizations have just made a business out of it. Of course now, there will be the U.S. national anthem and a black national anthem before all NFL games come this fall. That's the kind of "progress" that this silliness leads to.
Has Black Lives Matter ever shown up to help improve education in inner city schools or do they only show up to fan the flames if they hear that a cop has killed a black person? They show up before there has even been an investigation.
Are they helping to produce more local black entrepreneurs in the inner cities? Preaching that self-responsibility will result in greater changes than looking for perceived slights?
These aren't organizations that have ever produced any positive results. After 50 years why continue going down that path and to not want to continue to go down that path...you are a racist. It's stupid.
By the way, there have been 9 unarmed black people this year killed by the police and 20 unarmed white people killed by the police. There are more white people in the population of course but 52 percent of all homicides were committed by black people (why is that)?
Yet, we have probably seen video of all 9 black people that were killed and there were probably 9 riots as well. Do you know anything about the 20 unarmed white people that were killed? Any riots. No claim that the police were racist toward white people? Why not? Doesn't seem like a very balanced concern over loss of life.
Looks like this thread has been officially derailed.
If I may say to that one. I used to view BLM as fringe, but after the 2016 election, and thereafter, this Donald character and his dance made me dare an unhappiness in society that I hadn't before.
Like, Steve Bannon, White House Chief Strategist Senior Counselor to the President WTF?
Right. No one is suggesting we do.
"Statistics regarding black/white categories" were better before MLK?
Are you insane?
This thread has gotten far enough off track, and your comment above indicates that this discussion isn't going anywhere. If you want to have it, please start another one somewhere else.
Separate names with a comma.