Black woman on facebook wipes her ass with the American Flag, cac00ns mad (cacs and c00ns)

[godkiller]

 

[↓R↑LYB]

So one black woman takes down the confederate flag, and that's not good enough for y'all.
Another black woman disgraces the American flag, and that's not good enough. For y'all.
Seems to be one common denominator y'all have an issue with

Maybe they're flag aficionados

 

[godkiller]

She disgraced herself. That is my problem. She could have posed for a host of other pictures that didn't involve lowering herself like that. I don't disagree with the sentiment behind it, but the implementation was very unsavory. We are better than that.

She didn't disgrace herself at all. Rather she disgraced the flag and lowered it to toilet dispensaries. The only disgrace here is you who wants black women to always look pretty as though that is the end-all-be-all of life. Go fukk yourself.

 

[godkiller]

Ironic that some of the same people who would be mad at this, don't have a problem with people treasonously waving a flag (Confederate) not of this nation. Wiping your @$$ with an American flag is more American and patriotic (nodding to our Constitutional rights to freedoms, even if they're unpopular) than waving an entirely different flag.

 

[Cave Savage]

What they saying???

Many outright racist comments but mostly just blindly patriotic chestbeating bullshyt

 

[godkiller]

There's a few weird cac sexual racist posts in there, and a plethora of racist Mexican type people. Stop supporting immigration, people.

 

[151_Pr00f]

She chooses to suffer because she can? That's the sort of irrational reasoning that mentally deranged ppl use.

"Hey everyone, I perceive eating poop to be greatly against my well-being, yet I just eat this fat, chunky turd I plopped out my ass because I can" -- Your every day lunatic-asylum patient.

How do you know she's suffering? She's practicing her 1st amendment right to freedom of expression and given the context of how we were and are still treated in America I have no issue with it.

Just because she could move to another country but that doesn't mean she SHOULD move to another country.

Black people don't owe America anything PERIOD. America has the moral obligation to practice justice. It's written in the fabric of the constitution.That means we shouldn't have to travel abroad to seek it and as far as I'm concerned the flag has yet to represent that.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

How do you know she's suffering?

Assuming that her behavior involving the flag is a genuine portrayal of her views about america than I came to my conclusion using inductive reasoning and common sense.

She's practicing her 1st amendment right to freedom of expression and given the context of how we were and are still treated in America I have no issue with it.

So you acknowledge that her motivation came from a perceive feeling of distress/hardship(Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.) with the source being America. That's the same conclusion I made.

Just because she could move to another country but that doesn't mean she SHOULD move to another country.

(if)she is under the belief that she should value her well-being by avoiding anything that negitvely effects it
X is causing detrimental distress to her well-being
she has valid options to avoid X
therefore
she should avoid X

Of course, she doesn't have to, but like I said in my earlier post that would be the rational of someone who is deranged.

America has the moral obligation to practice justice. It's written in the fabric of the constitution.That means we shouldn't have to travel abroad to seek it and as far as I'm concerned the flag has yet to represent that.

Cute rhetoric, but unless you can provide some hard facts to prove that america's court systems or w/e your using "justice" to refer to in this sense is that much worse when compared to the rest of world than nothing you stated is of any value regarding justice.

 

[151_Pr00f]

Assuming that her behavior involving the flag is a genuine portrayal of her views about america than I came to my conclusion using inductive reasoning and common sense.


So you acknowledge that her motivation came from a perceive feeling of distress/hardship(Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.) with the source being America. That's the same conclusion I made.


(if)she is under the belief that she should value her well-being by avoiding anything that negitvely effects it
X is causing detrimental distress to her well-being
she has valid options to avoid X
therefore
she should avoid X

Of course, she doesn't have to, but like I said in my earlier post that would be the rational of someone who is deranged.


Cute rhetoric, but unless you can provide some hard facts to prove that america's court systems or w/e your using "justice" to refer to in this sense is that much worse when compared to the rest of world than nothing you stated is of any value regarding justice.

The only thing about her we can assume from her photo is that she is a black woman who obviously doesn't embrace whatever symbolism represented in the flag. That's it. It's an ideological stance. Nothing more nothing less.

My second statement was only to make the point that the history of enslaved Africans in America alone provides enough reason as to why she would feel motivated to take this photo. If you're black and know a little bit about American history this photo shouldn't offend you IMO.

That's why the argument that if you don't like this country, leave makes no sense to me. Under the constitution every individual in America has a right to express how they feel about their government in whatever way they see fit as long as it doesn't jeopardize the life and liberty of another individual. There is no grey area with free speech. Either you support it or you don't. Sure we could go back and forth all day about why she just doesn't move to another country but her reasons for not leaving doesn't take any precedent over why she felt the need to exercise her first amendment right. That's a value judgement left up for the individuals living here to decide. CACs use this argument all the time when people don't blindly support "patriotism". It's a cop out.

 

[Scott Larock]

Would wife

 

[the cac mamba]

shyts cool n all but

 

[Queen]

She didn't disgrace herself at all. Rather she disgraced the flag and lowered it to toilet dispensaries. The only disgrace here is you who wants black women to always look pretty as though that is the end-all-be-all of life. Go fukk yourself.

Go read a book. Preferable one without pictures. Your idiocy has nothing to do with me.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

The only thing about her we can assume from her photo is that she is a black woman who obviously doesn't embrace whatever symbolism represented in the flag. That's it. It's an ideological stance. Nothing more nothing less.

propositions like "Flag of oppression" and "https://fundly.com/insurrectoriotosis" gives me enough evidence to state that she perceives America in it's current state as something that is causing her great distress, i.e suffering.

My second statement was only to make the point that the history of enslaved Africans in America alone provides enough reason as to why she would feel motivated to take this photo.

But we know by her posts this was not done as a way to only bash the history of this country. And you concluded that too in your last post, "we were and are still treated in America". I'm not sure why you're changing your argument when what you said earlier is saved, and available for everyone to still see.

That's why the argument that if you don't like this country, leave makes no sense to me.

It's very easy to understand. You claim X is bad for you, while acknowledging that Y exist and is a available alternative, I reply by pointing out that you still choose to consume X when you have Y. In conclusion, there is only two logical explanations.

A)the person isn't being genuine and X really isn't bad(Which is my opinion on the woman tbh)
B)the person is flat out deranged and should be ignored.

Lawyers use this tactic all the time to point out to the jury that the accusers claims are fallacious, or likely to be fallacious.

Under the constitution every individual in America has a right to express how they feel about their government in whatever way they see fit as long as it doesn't jeopardize the life and liberty of another individual. There is no grey area with free speech. Either you support it or you don't.

I have never made the claim that she didn't have the right to do what she did, so I'm not sure how this point is relevant?

Sure we could go back and forth all day about why she just doesn't move to another country but her reasons for not leaving doesn't take any precedent over why she felt the need to exercise her first amendment right.

Of course, her not leaving doesn't mean she wasn't allowed to say or express what she did, and I have never made that argument. Her not leaving gives me insight on her train of thought or at least a better sense of what she really feels which is all I have been claiming.

CACs use this argument all the time when people don't blindly support "patriotism". It's a cop out.

CACs may use that specific argument, but the logic behind it is used in many applicants that involve the use of inductive reasoning. For example, Lawyers, Detectives, or behavior analyst.

 

[Fenian]

Good fukk the american flag. Salute to this woman.

And while we're at it.

fukk the British flag too.

 

[151_Pr00f]

propositions like "Flag of oppression" and "https://fundly.com/insurrectoriotosis" gives me enough evidence to state that she perceives America in it's current state as something that is causing her great distress, i.e suffering.


But we know by her posts this was not done as a way to only bash the history of this country. And you concluded that too in your last post, "we were and are still treated in America". I'm not sure why you're changing your argument when what you said earlier is saved, and available for everyone to still see.


It's very easy to understand. You claim X is bad for you, while acknowledging that Y exist and is a available alternative, I reply by pointing out that you still choose to consume X when you have Y. In conclusion, there is only two logical explanations.

A)the person isn't being genuine and X really isn't bad(Which is my opinion on the woman tbh)
B)the person is flat out deranged and should be ignored.

Lawyers use this tactic all the time to point out to the jury that the accusers claims are fallacious, or likely to be fallacious.


I have never made the claim that she didn't have the right to do what she did, so I'm not sure how this point is relevant?


Of course, her not leaving doesn't mean she wasn't allowed to say or express what she did, and I have never made that argument. Her not leaving gives me insight on her train of thought or at least a better sense of what she really feels which is all I have been claiming.


CACs may use that specific argument, but the logic behind it is used in many applicants that involve the use of inductive reasoning. For example, Lawyers, Detectives, or behavior analyst.

You're making it more complicated than it is.

If you're dissatisfied with the way the country is being run you can either

A. Leave
B. Protest

It's a form of protest bruh

Whether you do one or the other is a value judgement. That's why she doesn't have to leave, simple shyt. Just because you think it's irrational doesn't make it so