Would whites stop buying drugs if they knew.......

[OldWiseGuy]

People buy drugs to feed a habit or addiction. They are not motivated to ponder where the money goes.

I didn't say they did or should. That's on the dealer.

 

[Non sequitur]

When I buy my heroin, I always make sure to ask the dealer what he´s going to spend his profit on. And, of course, I only buy from whites.

I told you, earlier.

Profits go to help black dealers expand, beyond crack, so they`ll stop being stereotyped.

 

[durangodawood]

This is a weird thread.

 

[Non sequitur]

This is a weird thread.

The OP's threads always do!

 

[Go Braves]

I lived in a small town in the South for a while, that's just about fully white. It has a big meth problem, with whites as the dealers and the buyers. Most didn't even bother to get the shiny gold teeth talked about in the racist OP, they just let the rot be evident.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], just to infuse a little realism into a ridiculous conversation.

The only drug dealers we know about are the ones that get caught or the ones that self identify. The big boys? The runners of syndicates and cartels are largely everything but Black. Heroin, Cocaine and Marajuana go through Hispanic and Asian groups. The chemist drugs are often White. Black folks are street and neighborhood runners.

I think most Black dealers get started young as a way to make up for what is not being provided for them. They take care of their families and most waste the rest, as children who aren't taught otherwise do. The ones that keep peddling as established adults aren't bright and I wouldn't expect them to really benefit anyone but themselves.

You know what the successful Black drug dealers do? They use it as a means to an end and stop dealing. For example, Jay Z - dealing paved the way to start his business. Now he is a multimillionaire and now he gives back.

You can't compare organized crime and street hustlers - apples and oranges

 

[Cearbhall]

Hey look, it's Undercover Racist guy again! It's been a while!

Has it? I remember his views all too clearly...

 

[Non sequitur]

Has it? I remember his views all too clearly...

For me, it was at least a day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Often those who use legal drugs also are not concerned with ethics.

So... everybody/most who drink a glass of wine now and then, is an unethical beast?

Man is inherently evil, not inherently good.

What a terrible worldview.

No. Not what I was saying at all.

It actually was, by pointing specifically to "illegal" drugs.
Fine if you didn't mean it that way, but as written - that surely was what you said.

A person's character is determined by comparing them to the holy and perfect standard of God, and we all fall short of God's perfect standard.

Based on your specific subjective, personal, interpretation thereof, you mean.

 

[JoeP222w]

So... everybody/most who drink a glass of wine now and then, is an unethical beast?

No one is good, in and of themselves, not one. Regardless of drinking a glass of wine or not.

Romans 3:10-12 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

What a terrible worldview.

As you define yourself to be an Atheist, and thus against the word of God, it is no surprise you reject the word of God.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Based on your specific subjective, personal, interpretation thereof, you mean.

No, based on objective exegetical principles and the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not subject to my personal interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. (21) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

and

cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14 above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one is good, in and of themselves, not one.

I think that's incredibly insulting.
There are good people and there are bad people and that's just the way it is.
Nobody is born "good" or "bad". People's worldviews and ethics are shaped by their upbringing, culture, life-walk,... and to an extent influenced by their genetics.

To call people "inherently evil" is a christian premise which I completely and totally object to. I also find that it strips humans from their humanity and only serves one purpose: to put people down, just to lift them up again by conventiently providing the "one and only cure" for it.

This is a strategy that comes straight out of the playbook of con-men.
First, you assert that someone is sick / has a problem and then convince them that you conveniently hold the only solution.

Personally, it is my greatest objection to mainstream christian theology / philosophy.

I'ld have no problem with it, if that premise could actually be independently supported. But it cannot.

Romans 3:10-12 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

I don't care what the bible says - just like you don't care what other "holy" books have to say.

As you define yourself to be an Atheist, and thus against the word of God, it is no surprise you reject the word of God.

Atheism is not "against" the word of anybody.
I'm not "against" gods. As an atheist, I don't believe there are any gods to be against. Which is entirely different.

Yes, I reject unsupported assertions. You do that too. You just make an exception for the unsupported religious assertions of the religion you happen to subscribe to.

When it comes to any other topic, you are probably just as skeptical as I am.

No, based on objective exegetical principles and the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not subject to my personal interpretation.

If that were true, there wouldn't be thousands of different denomination, all of which "interpret" that book in their own specific way - even to the point of accusing eachother of not being "real christians" and even worse... to the point of using violence on eachother.

Even within a single denomination, you'll find many disagreements about god's "standard".

It's also (not so) curious to see that God oftenly seems to have the same opinions as the one who claims to have "the correct interpretation".

 

[JoeP222w]

I think that's incredibly insulting.

Your argument is with God.

I don't care what the bible says - just like you don't care what other "holy" books have to say.

I know, as I said, as you label yourself an Atheist, this is not surprising to me at all. And yet you are on a "Christian" website?

And you have no idea what I think about what other religions have to say. You don't know me, don't claim that you do.

Atheism is not "against" the word of anybody.

"Atheism" meaning "against Theism". Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

I'm not "against" gods. As an atheist, I don't believe there are any gods to be against. Which is entirely different.

What you believe is not relevant. Belief has no effect on truth.

Yes, I reject unsupported assertions. You do that too. You just make an exception for the unsupported religious assertions of the religion you happen to subscribe to.

You choose to reject the evidence that is before you, but in doing so you only further prove the Bible to be true.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

When it comes to any other topic, you are probably just as skeptical as I am.

Again, you don't know me or what I know or believe.

If that were true, there wouldn't be thousands of different denomination, all of which "interpret" that book in their own specific way - even to the point of accusing eachother of not being "real christians" and even worse... to the point of using violence on eachother.

How a doctrine is abused and twisted does not define the doctrine. That is a fallacious argument.

Christians are not divided in the fundamental truths of the faith, nor do Christians commit violence against one another.

Even within a single denomination, you'll find many disagreements about god's "standard".

Not every person within any given denomination is a Christian or has an infallible understanding of the truth of God. Moreover, popular agreement does not define truth.

It's also (not so) curious to see that God oftenly seems to have the same opinions as the one who claims to have "the correct interpretation".

I never said my opinions match perfectly with God. But the error lies within me, not with God. That is why Christians are in the process of being sanctified in the truth, His truth, the one and only absolute source of truth.

 

[Desk trauma]

"Atheism" meaning "against Theism".

Using A as a prefix means without, not against.

Christians are not divided in the fundamental truths of the faith, nor do Christians commit violence against one another.

LOL!

 

[Non sequitur]

"Atheism" meaning "against Theism". Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Not even close.

a-
prefix
prefix: a-; prefix: an-

1. not; without

What you believe is not relevant. Belief has no effect on truth.

Ain't that the truth...

 

[VirOptimus]

You can go over any of my threads and posts and you won't find a single untrue or racist statement, because I don't make them (I will admit to quite a bit of trolling however).

You certainly make very racist and ignorant posts. Your inabilty to either confess or understand this just makes it even more offensive.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You certainly make very racist and ignorant posts. Your inabilty to either confess or understand this just makes it even more offensive.

"Very racist" posts would get me cited by the mods (criticism and racism aren't the same thing).

"Ignorance" belongs to those who don't understand what I've been saying. This is a widespread problem here. Most of the responses I get have little to do with my comments. It's like, "I ask for the time and they tell me the weather."

 

[VirOptimus]

"Very racist" posts would get me cited by the mods (criticism and racism aren't the same thing).

"Ignorance" belongs to those who don't understand what I've been saying. This is a widespread problem here. Most of the responses I get have little to do with my comments. It's like, "I ask for the time and they tell me the weather."

I dont think so, racism and bigotry seem to be ok here.

Also, if you are widely misunderstood rhe problem is on your side. You are responsible for your own posts.

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

I think we'd start making our own.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I dont think so, racism and bigotry seem to be ok here.

Also, if you are widely misunderstood rhe problem is on your side. You are responsible for your own posts.

I'm not misunderstood as much as I am widely disagreed with.

 

[Almost there]

......that the blacks they buy from used the money to improve conditions in their inner city neighborhoods, as do the Native American tribes who use their ill-gotten but legal gambling gains to improve the lives of their tribal members? Is buying shiny guns and gold chains (and teeth) the best use of drug profits?

The first one to bring up race is the racist.

When people buy drugs, they are not thinking about who (besides themself) it helps or hurts. They just want their drugs.