Mitt's Mormon Problem Explained

[_subgenius]

Yes, and...?

the poster seemingly negates the hypocrisy of the confederacy saying they are against racism despite slavery when posed next to the union saying they are against slavery despite racism....a rather nonsensical simile is all that i was noticing[/quote]

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point he was making.[/quote]
which was my point...the poster actually made no point at all...nor did it make sense.

[_Buffalo]

which was my point...the poster actually made no point at all...nor did it make sense.

His point was that treating people as if they were inferior based on their race is inherently racist. Apparently it went flying over your head.

[_MsJack]

Welcome to MDB, Tim.

The inaccuracies and fallacies in ldsfaqs's 16-point apologetic for institutional LDS racism were already addressed in detail here. Having his arguments decimated hasn't stopped him from re-posting.

But at least he's posting material that is actually his and not plagiarizing Mormon bloggers this time.

Note that he has previously gone by the handles "Obiwan" and "leeuniverse."

[_subgenius]

His point was that treating people as if they were inferior based on their race is inherently racist. Apparently it went flying over your head.

I read, on that specific line of posts, no indication that anyone viewed anyone as "inferior" solely based on race.
The notion of the Canaanite is not "racial" but rather more specific to a family line, so specific as to be beyond the common definition of "race" or "racial"....perhaps more about genotype than phenotype.

(though i appreciate your constant passive insults to me and others, i can at least say that i have a head, and it is free from the confines of the buttocks)

[_subgenius]

Referring to those of African ancestry as cursed smacks a little of racism, don't you think?

the term "African ancestry", in and of itself, is actually racist.
To refer to any ancestry as inferior is just prejudicial....and sometimes prejudice can be a bad thing, other times good.
These are fundamental concepts, I am really beginning to question to your ability to grow into a proper bigot.

[_MsJack]

The notion of the Canaanite is not "racial" but rather more specific to a family line, so specific as to be beyond the common definition of "race" or "racial"....perhaps more about genotype than phenotype.

Here is one of the Dictionary definitions for race:

a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

Here is the Dictionary definition of racism:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others

Or:

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

Creating a system in which one group of people cannot hold certain offices or participate in certain ordinances based on no other factor but lineage (real or perceived) is a textbook example of racism.

If you guys want to argue that God was the author of the racism in question, fine. If you want to argue that other churches were just as bad or worse, okay. If you want to argue that Mormons were progressive on the race issue in other ways, knock yourselves out.

But arguing that it wasn't even racism in the first place is just obtuse, a red flag that you're someone who cannot think critically about the issue and should not be taken seriously.

[_Buffalo]

His point was that treating people as if they were inferior based on their race is inherently racist. Apparently it went flying over your head.

I read, on that specific line of posts, no indication that anyone viewed anyone as "inferior" solely based on race.
The notion of the Canaanite is not "racial" but rather more specific to a family line, so specific as to be beyond the common definition of "race" or "racial"....perhaps more about genotype than phenotype.

(though i appreciate your constant passive insults to me and others, i can at least say that i have a head, and it is free from the confines of the buttocks)

The mythology states that the black race came about through a curse, and the Canaanites were carriers of that curse. All races, per the Bible, started as a family line. Of course, the Canaanites were no more black than were the Israelites, but that's beside the point, racist. :)

[_Buffalo]

Referring to those of African ancestry as cursed smacks a little of racism, don't you think?

the term "African ancestry", in and of itself, is actually racist.
To refer to any ancestry as inferior is just prejudicial....and sometimes prejudice can be a bad thing, other times good.
These are fundamental concepts, I am really beginning to question to your ability to grow into a proper bigot.

Perhaps when you get back from your Klan meeting you can explain to us why race-based prejudice is actually a good thing.

[_ldsfaqs]

The notion of the Canaanite is not "racial" but rather more specific to a family line, so specific as to be beyond the common definition of "race" or "racial"....perhaps more about genotype than phenotype.

Here is one of the Dictionary definitions for race:

a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

Here is the Dictionary definition of racism:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others

Or:

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

Creating a system in which one group of people cannot hold certain offices or participate in certain ordinances based on no other factor but lineage (real or perceived) is a textbook example of racism.

No it's not.... Racism is based on immoral attitudes, behaviors, and actions, not simply "exclusionism".

Do you not understand the difference?

The Girl Scouts being exclusionary is not sexist.
Black Clubs being exclusionary is not racist.
I can go on and on with any group or subject.

If you guys want to argue that God was the author of the racism in question, fine. If you want to argue that other churches were just as bad or worse, okay. If you want to argue that Mormons were progressive on the race issue in other ways, knock yourselves out.

Thanks. But again, God wasn't the author of Racism, man was outside of the Church.

But arguing that it wasn't even racism in the first place is just obtuse, a red flag that you're someone who cannot think critically about the issue and should not be taken seriously.

Sorry, but it is YOU who can't think critically. You have nothing but racism on the brain, and you can't step outside of your box and see anything else, just like liberals call Conservatives racist simply because their brains have no comprehension skills to understand that our views against Obama have nothing to do with racism.

An exclusionary policy no matter what type or what group it is applied to is not automatically a bad thing or some bad thing. The courts have ruled on this subject for a long time. Racism has SPECIFIC PARAMETERS that must be met in order to qualify as racism. So does sexism and otherwise.

It's you who can't be taken seriously, because you're not the first to think like this.
I was a moron like you once myself.

[_Buffalo]

No it's not.... Racism is based on immoral attitudes, behaviors, and actions, not simply "exclusionism".

So, this wasn't racist?