BF2S Forums The fruits of Equal Opportunity

Yeah, its really funny that you keep saying we should not judge mlk by using civil rights activity and then insist that these issues make everything he did within the civil rights movement should be discounted. Like let's seperate the issues and therefore everything is false.   

You cant argue it works for you but not the other way around, roll your eyes, point a finger, and then say everyone is dancing around the issue.

Its called you are making a shitty argument

Last edited by Pug (2010-07-24 09:08:25)

FAst scrolling through this thread made me chuckle;

Pug
Lowing
Harmor
Pug
Lowing
Harmor
Pug
Lowing
HarmorPug
Lowing
HarmorPug
Lowing
Harmor
]Senor Toenails
Ghettoperson
Pug
Lowing
Harmor
Pug
Lowing
HarmorPug
Lowing
Harmor

Pug wrote:

Did

lowing wrote:

funny it is only with MLK do you all acknowledge human frailties, and forgive accordingly. I do not recall any of you rendering such understanding for any other public figure. What makes this guy any different?  Never mind he went to his grave knowing what he did and did not seek forgiveness for it. Never mind his actions went directly against what he said he stood for and indeed spoke about. You deem it insignificant and un-noteworthy.




"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", MLK.   Irony, gotta love it.

Yes, it is ironic you highlighted "color of their skin"

Good one

yer kiddin' ..........................right??

I highlighted the part where he says we should be judge by the content of character.....and he has, just as he wished. Man you will turn anything into a racist issue if you think you can get away with it. I wonder what would happen if this happened today while he was alive and active in the civil rights movement. Would he then be condemned and asked to step down or would this be dismissed as racist propaganda. I am guessing the later. Whatcha think?

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Did
Yes, it is ironic you highlighted "color of their skin"

Good one

yer kiddin' ..........................right??

I highlighted the part where he says we should be judge by the content of character.....and he has, just as he wished. Man you will turn anything into a racist issue if you think you can get away with it. I wonder what would happen if this happened today while he was alive and active in the civil rights movement. Would he then be condemned and asked to step down or would this be dismissed as racist propaganda. I am guessing the later. Whatcha think?

First, where did u say that? In a few posts including this one.   You are saying you have to separate the indiscretions yet "never mind his actions went directly against what he stood for...."  does that not imply we should invalidate everything he stands for?

I'm calling you out on flawed logic, including the part where you've "proved" mlk's work was shit.  It's the same argument made by neonazis.  Not that you are one, but I always thing its awesome when I'm not the one defending that point of view.

And for watcha think, I've explained already nothing is being hidden.  I'm also saying it doesn't matter. Its not a double standard.  The only reason u would proceed...why?  No one gives a shit, u know it, so therefore you must have an agenda or you have a really really good unexplained reason which doesn't include racism.  I don't think u afre racist, so prove it

Ummm what he supposedly stood for was morality, integrity, fairness, equality, honesty. Ya know the things you are supposed to judge a mans character by, as MLK said himself. Un-arguably he has betrayed all of those values through his actions BEFORE and DURING and surely would have done so after the civil rights movement had he lived. The civil rights movemnt is an entity unto itself, MLK was chosen to represent that movement, and yes, he dishonored it even if postumously. Just like a crooked cop dishonors the badge, or a crooked lawyer dishonors the law, or a bad soldier can dishonor his unit.

MLK's thoughts and beliefs that all men should be treated fairly and given the same rights is correct, however those are not thoughts and beliefs exclusive to MLK alone. Hell I believe the same thing, however, this is not the yardstick used to judge character. His actions flies in the face what should be the character of a man chosen to lead such a noble cause..

By the way isn't Charles Rangel, a perfect example that a person can be invloved in the civil rights movement and still be a person lacking honorable and moral character?

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-25 12:04:24)

lowing wrote:

Ummm what he supposedly stood for was morality, integrity, fairness, equality, honesty. Ya know the things you are supposed to judge a mans character by, as MLK said himself. Un-arguably he has betrayed all of those values through his actions BEFORE and DURING and surely would have done so after the civil rights movement had he lived. The civil rights movemnt is an entity unto itself, MLK was chosen to represent that movement, and yes, he dishonored it even if postumously. Just like a crooked cop dishonors the badge, or a crooked lawyer dishonors the law, or a bad soldier can dishonor his unit.

MLK's thoughts and beliefs that all men should be treated fairly and given the same rights is correct, however those are not thoughts and beliefs exclusive to MLK alone. Hell I believe the same thing, however, this is not the yardstick used to judge character. His actions flies in the face what should be the character of a man chosen to lead such a noble cause..

By the way isn't Charles Rangel, a perfect example that a person can be invloved in the civil rights movement and still be a person lacking honorable and moral character?

Right, but you know nothing is being done about it...but NOT because of a double standard.

Aka, back to the beginning.  Palin does not equal MLK.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ummm what he supposedly stood for was morality, integrity, fairness, equality, honesty. Ya know the things you are supposed to judge a mans character by, as MLK said himself. Un-arguably he has betrayed all of those values through his actions BEFORE and DURING and surely would have done so after the civil rights movement had he lived. The civil rights movemnt is an entity unto itself, MLK was chosen to represent that movement, and yes, he dishonored it even if postumously. Just like a crooked cop dishonors the badge, or a crooked lawyer dishonors the law, or a bad soldier can dishonor his unit.

MLK's thoughts and beliefs that all men should be treated fairly and given the same rights is correct, however those are not thoughts and beliefs exclusive to MLK alone. Hell I believe the same thing, however, this is not the yardstick used to judge character. His actions flies in the face what should be the character of a man chosen to lead such a noble cause..

By the way isn't Charles Rangel, a perfect example that a person can be invloved in the civil rights movement and still be a person lacking honorable and moral character?

Right, but you know nothing is being done about it...but NOT because of a double standard.

Aka, back to the beginning.  Palin does not equal MLK.

After all of this you still think this is nothing more than a comparison between Palin and MLK? Sad really.


By the way, there is no comparison, one was a cheat and a thief, womanizer, plagiariser, fraud, adulterer and the other one was the governor of Alaska who wore an expensive dress and wrote crib notes on her hands to reference while speaking OH THE SHAME!!!.

lol you know what a love about saying that? You can not deny it!!

Pug wrote:

Ummm...yeah, I guess if you basically ignore everything thats being debated

Good job there

Actually this is what has been debated, now address it.
"Ummm what he supposedly stood for was morality, integrity, fairness, equality, honesty. Ya know the things you are supposed to judge a mans character by, as MLK said himself. Un-arguably he has betrayed all of those values through his actions BEFORE and DURING and surely would have done so after the civil rights movement had he lived. The civil rights movemnt is an entity unto itself, MLK was chosen to represent that movement, and yes, he dishonored it even if postumously. Just like a crooked cop dishonors the badge, or a crooked lawyer dishonors the law, or a bad soldier can dishonor his unit.

MLK's thoughts and beliefs that all men should be treated fairly and given the same rights is correct, however those are not thoughts and beliefs exclusive to MLK alone. Hell I believe the same thing, however, this is not the yardstick used to judge character. His actions flies in the face what should be the character of a man chosen to lead such a noble cause..

By the way isn't Charles Rangel, a perfect example that a person can be invloved in the civil rights movement and still be a person lacking honorable and moral character?"

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Ummm...yeah, I guess if you basically ignore everything thats being debated

Good job there

Actually this is what has been debated, now address it.
"Ummm what he supposedly stood for was morality, integrity, fairness, equality, honesty. Ya know the things you are supposed to judge a mans character by, as MLK said himself. Un-arguably he has betrayed all of those values through his actions BEFORE and DURING and surely would have done so after the civil rights movement had he lived. The civil rights movemnt is an entity unto itself, MLK was chosen to represent that movement, and yes, he dishonored it even if postumously. Just like a crooked cop dishonors the badge, or a crooked lawyer dishonors the law, or a bad soldier can dishonor his unit.

MLK's thoughts and beliefs that all men should be treated fairly and given the same rights is correct, however those are not thoughts and beliefs exclusive to MLK alone. Hell I believe the same thing, however, this is not the yardstick used to judge character. His actions flies in the face what should be the character of a man chosen to lead such a noble cause..

By the way isn't Charles Rangel, a perfect example that a person can be invloved in the civil rights movement and still be a person lacking honorable and moral character?"

Ahh, so basically we have to rewrite history so that everyone knows about the problems during his life to prove you right.

I'm not really interested in Rangel because I haven't really paid attention to it.  In fact, I don't even know what is happening with Rangel.

But according to your logic, we should only weigh a person's character, which in no part has any connection to their accomplishments.  So if I judge Rangel, am I to weigh his civil rights activity separate from his character?  And if I find a character problem, I need to ignore everything they have done...ignoring it as evidence of their ideals....and condemn them without considering it at all.

...also if we are going to expand the argument and comparisons...how about Bill Clinton?  Seems like that guy did a pretty good job at president while enjoying himself.  Or wait....he should have been shot because of a character issue (which I would of loved btw).

And, with that being said, I'm pretty sure there's not going to be a "Bill Clinton Day" celebrated across the US (although it would be nice to have a "national BJ day").  Yet there's a MLK day.  Fuck me...how did that happen?

Yay, same argument from you equals same argument back.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Ummm...yeah, I guess if you basically ignore everything thats being debated

Good job there

Actually this is what has been debated, now address it.
"Ummm what he supposedly stood for was morality, integrity, fairness, equality, honesty. Ya know the things you are supposed to judge a mans character by, as MLK said himself. Un-arguably he has betrayed all of those values through his actions BEFORE and DURING and surely would have done so after the civil rights movement had he lived. The civil rights movemnt is an entity unto itself, MLK was chosen to represent that movement, and yes, he dishonored it even if postumously. Just like a crooked cop dishonors the badge, or a crooked lawyer dishonors the law, or a bad soldier can dishonor his unit.

MLK's thoughts and beliefs that all men should be treated fairly and given the same rights is correct, however those are not thoughts and beliefs exclusive to MLK alone. Hell I believe the same thing, however, this is not the yardstick used to judge character. His actions flies in the face what should be the character of a man chosen to lead such a noble cause..

By the way isn't Charles Rangel, a perfect example that a person can be invloved in the civil rights movement and still be a person lacking honorable and moral character?"

Ahh, so basically we have to rewrite history so that everyone knows about the problems during his life to prove you right.

I'm not really interested in Rangel because I haven't really paid attention to it.  In fact, I don't even know what is happening with Rangel.

But according to your logic, we should only weigh a person's character, which in no part has any connection to their accomplishments.  So if I judge Rangel, am I to weigh his civil rights activity separate from his character?  And if I find a character problem, I need to ignore everything they have done...ignoring it as evidence of their ideals....and condemn them without considering it at all.

...also if we are going to expand the argument and comparisons...how about Bill Clinton?  Seems like that guy did a pretty good job at president while enjoying himself.  Or wait....he should have been shot because of a character issue (which I would of loved btw).

And, with that being said, I'm pretty sure there's not going to be a "Bill Clinton Day" celebrated across the US (although it would be nice to have a "national BJ day").  Yet there's a MLK day.  Fuck me...how did that happen?

Yay, same argument from you equals same argument back.

I see so an unscrupulous PREACHERS moral compass does not come into play when he preaches about morality integrity, honesty.....Got it.

The only comparison I made to Palin was Dilberts assertion in one thread that a public figures private life is fair game while in this one it should be off limits. That is it. Only by the usual dodging and re-directions of you and others like you have you determined this a comparison of their accomplishments. It isn't.

As far as MLK's accomplishments during the civil rights movement, the only thing I have said was his credibility has been shot, because if you are going to pound the pulpit on an issue, it might be best that you practice what you preach... Apparently do disagree. Claiming it is not important and who cares. That is not an argument, that is a dismissal.

Pug wrote:

I'm done here.  You've just proved the exact item I stated: you want to judge the WHOLE by using narrow logic.

Let's remember I've said MLK was guilty...

lol, no what is" narrow logic " is dismissing a mans character as non-important, when he has built a life and a reputation around that character and image

and yes I want to judge his WHOLE character, NOT the civil rights movement. ONLY his credibility has been damaged, and this has nothing to do with the morality of the civil rights movement itself.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-26 14:59:22)

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm done here.  You've just proved the exact item I stated: you want to judge the WHOLE by using narrow logic.

Let's remember I've said MLK was guilty...

lol, no what is" narrow logic " is dismissing a mans character as non-important, when he has built a life and a reputation around that character and image

and yes I want to judge his WHOLE character, NOT the civil rights movement. ONLY his credibility has been damaged, and this has nothing to do with the morality of the civil rights movement itself.

Well, here's the problem that you can't get over:

WHOLE character NOT the civil rights movement.


I've been telling you the whole time his actions within the civil rights movement is PART of his character

yup and his actions within the civil rights movement was wrought with womanizing and adultery, oh and plagiarism. Thats right, his speeches were also, in part, stolen form others works.
As I have tried to point out, if he committed murder while leading the civil rights movement, he would still be a fuckin murderer. His actions and his character has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. It is solely a reflection on the man. you act as if the civil rights movement would not have happened if not for MLK.

I never gave it much thought but I wonder if it is fair to say that he is just one man capitalizing on the moment. He rode the wave, he did not create it.  No different than Jesse and Al do today. Is that a perspective that could hold water?

Pug wrote:

Yes and no one gives a shit.  It's up to you to understand why.

(AGAIN)

LOL, this argument has nothing to do with changing history. It has everything to do with yours and others argument that it "does not matter" it is "insignificant", I am "blind", "he is dead"  and his "privacy is off limits", while people you do not like should have their privacy as fair game. You would not lend Bush such consideration even if he were dead when dirt waqs dug up on him.  It is your guys inconsistency regarding that issue that is in question.

It is up to you to explain why.................( for the first time)


By the way, if no one gives a shit, why does the federal govt. threaten to with hold federal funding in order to create roads and shit named after him? Sounds like someone might give a shit about that fuckers legacy.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-27 14:18:34)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … p;hpt=Sbin


LMAO!! Foxnews is racist. NOT Sherry Sherrod who admitted what she had done, NOT the NAACP crowd that applauded her actions, NOT the white house who actually took action against Sherrod and had her fired, ONLY Foxnews who reported the incident. Let us also not forget Foxnews only reported it they didn't invent the story.

so explain why foxnews is racist for not getting all the facts, and the NAACP and White House are not racist for jumping to the same conclusions as Fox News. After all it was them  and not the Fox News that "condemned her", "was appalled" by her actions and actually had her resign.

Lets also discuss why she would in that same video encourage all blacks to apply for work with the USDA because the govt. does not lay people off. I wonder if a govt official could get away with encouraging all white people to do the same....

Also, where was the charges of racism toward the CNN MSNBC ABC etc.... for their reporting of the Henry Gates incident? That white cop drew a presidential apology as well.

Jesse Jackson is all over this Sherrod case, but I don't remember his presence with the Henry Gates case.

More double standard that needs explaining and will never be explained I am afraid.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-27 15:23:27)