Derp?
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Something I thought I read? Lol. I still can read it, can't you? I quoted it in full, twice.

My position is as strong and clear as my first post, yours changes every turn.

Try
To
Read
Carefully....

Blanket racial statements are wrong and racist.

Same position I held the entire conversation, one you continue to fail to comprehend.

Your attempts to change the subject to try to argue your statement's partial validity is just that, an attempt to change the subject to a completely different argument. I'm not interested, you aren't that interesting or even entertaining.

My point that you continue to miss, intentionally or not, is that blanket statements are wrong (with one exception for the blanket statement that blanket statements are wrong), racial blanket statements are wrong and racist. Sad you won't comprehend, I wonder if you can't.

I withdraw because you aren't debating, you're flailing at changing the subject, which was never racial disparity or possibilities, it's painting any grouping of one race as "X". Again, sad you don't comprehend, but I'm exhausted trying to explain to someone who clearly only wants to argue.

Good day, you may have the last word, replete with more ridiculous accusations I expect. Conversation with you has proven fruitless and utterly unenlightening, now turning to ridiculous insults and pure fantasy.

Cherry picked!? Lol.

"One white person is pleasant company; 50 white people are a lynch mob waiting to happen.".... (Blanket racial statement)
Drachen_Jager-
"Not entirely inaccurate, though." (Endorsement)

All the other tripe is attempting to change the subject.
You said the blanket statement about whites is not entirely wrong, in some places it's not entirely wrong, sometimes in some places it's not entirely wrong.....
I'm consistent in saying any blanket statement is wrong, and blanket statements about race are invariably wrong and racist.

There is no debate here. You just keep changing your position so you can argue.
Enjoy

My counter argument....that that's not what you said....and it's still inaccurate.

You said the blanket statement about any/every group of 50 whites being a violent racist gang is not entirely inaccurate. It is.

Now, had you said the blanket statement about every group of 50 whites being a lynch mob was true some of the time, that would still be a wildly inaccurate overstatement, but better. There has been no point in time when every group of 50 white men was a lynch mob.

Had you said what you now say, it's not entirely inaccurate because it's true some of the time in certain specific areas with certain groupings, it would be contradicting the original blanket statement which is inaccurate, so it's still technically incorrect, just like saying the statement about groups of black people isn't entirely inaccurate....it is, because the unwritten but undeniable subject of the statement is ANY group of 50 black/white people, not one specific group in a few specific places at some times.

If you understand that, you understand why it's entirely inaccurate no matter how you wish to interpret the rest.

Is it true that there have been groups of 50 white men that were a lynch mob, yes. That doesn't resemble what you said.

I don't think they're intended to mean "it's infinitesimally possible, however incredibly unlikely and totally wrong as a blanket statement about any group of 50 white people", paired with your explanation I think it means "that's true in many places".


Kind of like agreeing that "50 black people are a violent criminal gang" is not entirely inaccurate because in certain specific places it might be possible....but as a blanket statement about ANY and EVERY group of 50 black people it's not only entirely inaccurate, it's insultingly racist.

Really?
You want to defend that?!

You honestly believe white people are all so easily swayed and ready to jump into racial attacks with no provocation that any gathering of >50 is just a mob awaiting a proper target, which is any non white?

Are you prepared to make similar insulting and divisive blanket racist statements about other ethnicities?

Here I was feeling bad I had called him out on what was intended as a bad joke, then you come along to support it as a fact. *facepalm

Soooo,

we believe women, unless they are accusing another even 'weaker' minority...

Ultimately it is fair to make the point that 'believe survivors' isn't meant by many people as a blanket belief of any and all accusations, but rather by the subjective standard of 'credible'. That this is thus remaining a subjective stance rather than an absolute isn't unfair to point out.

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

I don't understand how you can made definitive blanket statements like that, based on the limited info we have.

All we have right now is one lying sack of shit talking to another lying sack of shit about some vague agreements.

NK has promised to denuclearize, on multiple occasions, since the early 1990s.

Please don't be naive.

*promote more views please. I'd love my own blanket cave!

I don't expect you to believe or not believe anything, I don't know you, you don't know me, but I do try HARD to not make blanket statements about anything without caveats, because invariably they are wrong and usually exclusionary.
Details matter.

My best friend in preschool was a thalidomide baby, and had 2 fingers per "hand", so yes, I would definitely say "most people have 5, but not all." or "which person?"
I'm usually totally infuriatingly specific like that. I have a wide, uncontrolled 'newtboy ruins everything' streak. Teachers hated me because I would interrupt them any time they ignored the outliers or exceptions to the rules they were teaching, but a few also loved me because I was clearly paying attention.

Like saying humans have white skin, or blue eyes, or blond hair isn't dehumanizing to non Arians? If you make a blanket statement about who's human that leaves out a group, you dehumanize them, intentionally or not. Simple. Saying humans have five fingers on their hand dehumanized anyone who doesn't. Saying the sky is blue during sunset just makes you moronic.

No, you don't get to change or erase the meaning of words because you disagree with proven, peer reviewed, long standing science. Sorry. Brain scans show physical differences between genders that don't always correspond to sex, but do correspond to gender.

OMG I had to check Snopes.

That thing is real!

It also violates several sections of the US flag code. (ie this is considered "disrespectful" to the flag.) Using it as a blanket, letting it droop to the floor, or draping it over anything are all violations.

But Trumpians don't care about ACTUALLY disrespecting the flag. They just care when black people are doing anything resembling protest and they'll make it about the flag or other cultural institutions (which they've shown time and again they don't really care about) if they can possibly twist it that way.

I'm now so tempted to get myself a Pocket Pussy, a camera, and a personal trainer to shout inspirational work-out phrases at Sarah. And a royal blue blanket, obviously.

I think they need to back off this specific diagnosis of Alzheimer's and stick with blanket dementia/mental instability. His doctors could offer some proof that it's not specifically Alzheimer's causing his insanity and force a reboot of the removal process.

The reason the Republicans won't do this is they would have to excuse their own actions of following along with and zealously supporting his insanity while admitting it was actual, clear, diagnosed insanity they supported whole heartedly for so long.

I can rarely agree with a blanket statement, but it I think we do agree that an armed populace is more difficult to oppress, I just contend it doesn't make oppression impossible.

I think people living under the control of warlords would differ and call them oppressive dictators, even if their areas of control might be small.

Yes, but doesn't Rwanda prove my point in a way? The genocidal thugs were armed, yet control was eventually taken from them....although I hope Kagme isn't a tyrant...I honestly don't know about him.