So @sccit is an open zionist on a black hip hop forum?

[NO-BadAzz]

That's not my argument.​

Gotcha,

What is your stance?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Gotcha,

What is your stance?

They COULD practice. How many actually DID is conjecture.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

Yes, I did​

No you haven't and if so, SHOW THE EXACT CITATION!

It didn't work on the slaves. They didn't buy it at all.​

Ok, so explain how and when it backfired?

​

Name-calling also proves nothing​

It not meant to prove anything, it's merely an observation based on the collected data.

Neither did that post.

You indeed proved nothing.

I agree here that you never posted evidence for your claims.​

Lol. I'm neither 'cornered' nor 'acting corny'.​

Yes, you are because you can't, and dare not to elaborate on issues.

It is pseudoscience. That's why I posted it.

I see what your issue is, you totally misread my argument.​

​

What did I misread?

The issues is that you don't formulate your arguments well. This is why you are all over the place with claims. At least cite the parts.

Yes, we know that by now. But how does that make it have less of an effect on the lives of Black people? You keep telling that it's not that worse, because it's all pseudo science. It's out there and it hurts Black people that is the issue here. The question from the beginning has been, what is the basis, the root for that type of thinking. Where does it come from?

I made-up nothing and you just confirmed it.​

You made up everything, thus is why you couldn't back it up with reputable data. All throughout the Americas Africans werent allowed to expresess African based religions, neither could they express their Islamic and Judaic fait.

I know that, and am not arguing against that. What I am saying is that not all Africans were slaves and followed their own doctrines, syncretized Christianity with their existing doctrines, converted to Christianity, or didn't follow any doctrine at all.​

It's not about Africans following their or their own doctrines. It's about what was or wasn't allowed. Do you even understand the arguments?

​

You're just angry. It happens.​

​

I am angry over what? Be specific.

If more people recognize it IS pseudoscience, it can no longer be used to victimize. Can't change the past.​

But "if" theory by you is a mere hypothesis. The facts are that this ideology has been widespread and has and IS effecting Black people. These are the facts. So what past are you uttering about? I posted data that is present, in this day and time. Things like the gap of funding between Black and white schools, racist wealth gap, false imprisonment etc. These are things that are in the now!

Human beings are naturally 'dehumanizing' to other humans they view as 'other'. Science, however, has shown that all humans are the same. The only 'differences" are due to environment.​

Yes, science has shown that, but how does that make the facts of Black people being dehumanized make go away? The data was already given. Stop hoping around these facts and answer the questions by elaborating on them.

No one's arguing the contrary.​

Ok. show where and how it the opposite if the data I have provided.

Humans' natural propensity of suspicion towards those they view as 'other'.​

No, that was the wrong answer, because in all actuality you don't understand this subject. You just blabber along.

No. Adherence to pseudoscientific beliefs caused those events.​

Yes, we know it pseudoscientific. So how does that make Black people responsible for these sciences? Lay it out step by step...

​

They are important to you, red herrings to me.​

So the racial wealth gap, funding gap between Black and white schools or false imprisonment of Black males is red herrings to you? But yeah, to me these are important, when that I can agree.

Adherence to pseudoscience is the cause of those.​

​

Do you know anything else but the argument pseudoscience? So if a Black persons is false accused, arrested and imprisonts it actually because of adherence to pseudoscience?

Natural human propensity to view 'others' with suspicion.​

Ok, and from where did this come, how far does it date back?

Peas.​

Nope, wrong answer.

They adhere to pseudoscientific beliefs.

Yeah yeah yeah, adhere to "pseudoscientific beliefs".

So it's actually Black people who are to be blamed over the racial wealth gap. It's not racist laws and policies. It's because Black people adhere to pseudoscientific beliefs. It's not because of "white supremacists ideology".

Tell, is a book like the Bell Curve rooted in "white supremacists ideology"?

 

[Ish Gibor]

In 1621, Amsterdam residents purchased 3 million florins in stock; of that the 18 Jews who participated invested 36,000 florins. The percentage owned by Jews after that is unknown, but the number who invested is:​

1656 = 7
1658 = 11
1672 = 10
1676 = 11

Footnotes ascribe these numbers to this book.....​

To me it's not about the "jews" per se. It's about the fact that many had converted to Christianty and or had non Jewish names in appearance. Thus is why I asked you how accurate that claim is.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

Ok, so explain how and when it backfired?

Every African slave revolt on the New World is an example of it backfiring.
​

It not meant to prove anything, it's merely an observation based on the collected data.

Your observation isn't objective, therefore, invalid.
​

I agree here that you never posted evidence for your claims.

You're arguing a strawman, several in fact, not my actual stance.
​

Yes, you are because you can't, and dare not to elaborate on issues.

The issues are a result of adherence to pseudoscience.​

 

[NO-BadAzz]

They COULD practice. How many actually DID is conjecture.​

What/WHO said that they COULD practice and where COULD they practice this at??

What time frame are you speaking about?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

To me it's not about the "jews" per se. It's about the fact that many had converted to Christianty and or had non Jewish names in appearance. Thus is why I asked you how accurate that claim is.

It is as accurate as can be given the source documentation which, in this case, are the lists of investors from the Company that survived the years. Names are not conclusive proof of anything due to intermarriage and migration.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What said that they COULD practice and where COULD they practice this at??

The United States' Constitution, 1st Amendment.........

The Religion Clauses: Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

.......and wherever they lived if "free".​

 

[Ish Gibor]

Every African slave revolt on the New World is an example of it backfiring.
​

Well, I am glade that this at least you can admit to. So tell, what about all the massacrers like Tulsa, Rosewood etc. and the confiscation of Black property, land and wealth, that led to the mass migration? Is all that due Black people's so called adherence to pseudo science like Eugenics or due to the "Lost Cause"?

Your observation isn't objective, therefore, invalid.

So why isn't it objective? Show otherwise to give you claims validation.

What is not objective about this?

“Examining the Black-white wealth gap”

"African-Americans' Wealth A Fraction That Of Whites Due To Systematic Inequality"

"The Racial Wealth Gap: Why A Typical White Household Has 16 Times The Wealth Of A Black One"

You're arguing a strawman, several in fact, not my actual stance.
​

Ok, and what are these strawman arguments you claim I've made? It has been your stance from the beginning, by ignoring data and do it away as Black people who are adhering to pseudoscience. Is the "fund gab" between Black and white school because Black people supposedly adhere to this pseudoscience? Why and what would the reason be to defund Black schools lesser? What goes into that reasoning?

The issues are a result of adherence to pseudoscience.​

So the result of Black men being false accused and imprisonment, the racial wealth gab etc. is actually because of this so called adherence to pseudoscience Black people supposedly believe in (as you keep claiming)? It's not due to racist policies, but due to Black people is that what you are saying?

 

[NO-BadAzz]

The United States' Constitution, 1st Amendment.........

The Religion Clauses: Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

.......and wherever they lived if "free".​

Oh you believe that Blacks that were "freed" had those rights to practice this everywhere?


Because you see it on paper and you see the word "Congress and US Constitution 1st Amendment, you truly believe in your mind that this law prohibited black folks to practice their religion in peace? lol

So you're one of those guys, if you see it written down, it happened to happed that way. Can't study history that way

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well, I am glade that this at least you can admit to.

You misunderstood my entire argument.

​

So why isn't it objective? Show otherwise to give you claims validation.

Your reasoning is circular and you are arguing strawmen, not my actual position.
​

Ok, and what are these strawman arguments you claim I've made? It has been your stance from the beginning, by ignoring data and do it away as Black people who are adhering to pseudoscience.

No, I said, quite clearly, 'people'. YOU keep saying, specifically, Black.​

 

[Ish Gibor]

The United States' Constitution, 1st Amendment.........

The Religion Clauses: Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

.......and wherever they lived if "free".​

You shot yourself in the foot. And this is not the first time. The problem is that you post stuff, but have you actually read it?

This is from your source:

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

Here is wiki for you, which you so dearly embrace.

1689 Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights secured the rights of all "persons" to be free from establishment of Roman Catholic laws in the government of England.

Colonial New Jersey and Pennsylvania Constitutions
The original Mason-Dixon line was the demarcation line between the Catholic colony of Maryland and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania colonies, which followed the 1689 Bill of Rights and their own colonial constitutions which provided similar protections against the establishment of Catholic laws in government.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia

Explain why the 13th, 14th and 15th amandment have been implemented?

 

[NO-BadAzz]

The United States' Constitution, 1st Amendment.........

The Religion Clauses: Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

.......and wherever they lived if "free".​

Did you know that some/most of the "freed" blacks were taken back into slavery if a white man felt some kind of way about him being free?

Did you know black 'freed' men were jail, for own'n a dog, not having a job, walking on the wrong side of the street, staring to long at a white person (some were hung or shot down), chewing bubble gum, but you wanna try and convince me that 'freed' black people were allowed to practice their religion peacefully?

Lol ok...Study a bit harder fam

 

[Ish Gibor]

Did you know that some/most of the "freed" blacks were taken back into slavery if a white man felt some kind of way about him being free?

Did you know black 'freed' men were jail, for own'n a dog, not having a job, walking on the wrong side of the street, staring to long, but you wanna try and convince me that 'freed' black people were allowed to practice their religion peacefully?

Lol ok...Study a bit harder fam

Yep, the Dred Scott Decision.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You shot yourself in the foot.

Not at all, that actually proves what I stated.

If you're looking for "African indigenous religions" or "Native American religions" to be on there, specifically, then of course you'd think as you do.​