Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[Ryantology]

You seem quite rapidly leftist on economic matters. What issues do you not share the standard leftist position on?

There are admittedly few, but among them are that I support the development of GMO foods, I don't support legislation on unhealthy foods, and I'm not a huge fan of race-based affirmative action (though not for the same reasons conservatives tend to be).

Again, there is a distinction to be made between ideology and a point-by-point agreement that coincides with an ideology.

Even if that is true it still doesn't negate the veracity of the term. The Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons of this world need to be pulled up along with their followers who endorse their lies.

It does negate the veracity of the term in a great many contexts, because that term is used most frequently by racists defending racism, close to the point where the term itself is a racist expression.

I can only go by what you post/. You aren't a frothing loon like Minimalist but you appear to share his views.

Does a person's viewpoints necessarily dictate the reasons why that person holds the viewpoint?

There are no shortage of self-described "colorblind" people whose idea of colorblindness is insisting that racism doesn't exist anymore, and whenever evidence to the contrary is exhibited, those who display the evidence are considered 'race baiters'.

Complete strawman. race baiters IGNORE any evidence and take a side on ideological grounds. I am pretty certain that had the Zmmerman/Martin roles been reversed you would have switched sides with the same evidence.

Wait, you yell 'strawman' in one sentence and then set up your own in the next? I am interested to know how many examples of my opinions regarding race you consulted before you came to this conclusion.

Earlier in this thread, I made a point to mention that I didn't make assumptions about your views on race in spite of you sharing viewpoints with racists. Apparently you do not give others that benefit of the doubt. Yet, I'm the ideologue.

Were there some people who did that on 'my side'? Sure. But, as I pointed out (and as you pointedly ignored), the situation for young black males in particular is that they are at an automatic disadvantage. There were many, far more, on 'the other side' who continue to insist that Trayvon Martin's combination of age, gender and skin color make it inherently more likely that he deserved what he got. Point this out is not 'race baiting'. It is pointing out reality. There are plenty of cases of it, well-documented.

Yeah, that hobby is dangerous, which is why it seems unlikely to me that it went down that way.

Reality is ,of course, that except in the minds of the ideologically blinkered it is true that young black men are the most criminally minded combination of sex,skin colour and age in the USA (and indeed the UK). Stating that isn't racist either (much as people of YOUR ideology often insist it is). You leftists and the Conservatives are two sides of the same coin. You both judge on race rather than as individuals

It's not racist to say that?

I'm not so sure about that, because it is a completely disingenuous statement. Young black men are also one of the demographics most likely to be impoverished, and poverty is, by far, the strongest correlating factor when measuring levels of criminal activity. It may not be your intention (again, giving you a benefit of the doubt you seem completely unwilling to give me), but your statement definitely implies that race is the primary causative factor in criminal activity, and if that is what you're implying, then it's a racist statement.

None of you use it in a positive manner. Except in the case of race or gender specific medical reasons ( such as breat cancer, Tay Sachs or sickle cell anaemia) discrimination is always a bad thing for society as a whole and only increases racial hatred.

Why am I the ideologue when you're the one placing me inside of all the blanket statements and generalizations?

You don;t want freedom. You want special treatment.

Point out to me one example of me advocating for 'special treatment'.

It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort .All it demonstrates is that the media is vastly more concerned over the killing of a black person by a white person than of a white person by a black person (which generally goes unreported)

Are you fucking kidding me?

Backlash? Are you referring to the unprovoked racist attacks on white and latino people committed by thugs that was condoned by the left and their racebaiting allies?

Okay, see, when you use the word 'thug' as a replacement for 'black', then there's really no doubt that you're a racist. I can't suspend disbelief on that any further.