Do you understand the word 'likely'?

From google:

like·ly
ˈlīklē/
adjective
adjective: likely; comparative adjective: likelier; superlative adjective: likeliest
1.
such as well might happen or be true; probable.
"the likely effects of the drought on sugar beet yields"

expected, anticipated, predictable, predicted, foreseeable;
informal in the cards
"it seemed likely that a scandal would break"

2.
apparently suitable; promising.
"a likely-looking spot"

promising, hopeful
"a likely place for a picnic"

adverb
adverb: likely
1.
probably.
"we will most likely go to a bar"

'Likely' is a judgment of *probability*. It's not an *assumption* that the thing is *certainly* true, which is what you were saying when you said, "He just assumed that every white person in that church was "mildly racist"."

Ironically, you are yourself displaying prejudice, when you take his innocuous statement about probability and *assume* that he is making a blanket statement about everyone.

[See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood#Historical_remarks ]

Edited 1/1/2016 00:18:11

So... what this post was meant to prove?

It was a confession, to his God.

Prove? It's a story.

Do you understand the word 'prejudice?'

From Google:

prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women"
2.
LAW
harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment.
"prejudice resulting from delay in the institution of the proceedings"
synonyms: detriment, harm, damage, injury, hurt, loss
"without prejudice to the interests of others"

Jai has not acted in the form of prejudice. He has not made any preconceived opinion, as he is commenting on what he has read. Actually, Hitchslap is acting in prejudice. He assumes that people who vote for the Nationalist party are racist. He assumes people who live in right-wing areas are "mildly racist."

Yes he has. He has judged Hitchslap's character and thoughts (as being intolerant and racist) before he has enough information to make an informed judgment.

He assumes that people who vote for the Nationalist party are racist. He assumes people who live in right-wing areas are "mildly racist."

And now you're making the same mistake. I note that you fail to quote him, but only paraphrase (inaccurately).

Edited 1/1/2016 03:35:22

waiting for part two..

These were my original questions: Is it going to be a great evening because he is black?? Also why do you care about the difference between "dark ebony black" and "milk chocolate black"??

I'll wait for hitchslap to respond instead of his proxy (wct).

Edited 1/1/2016 04:58:21

*you're ;-D

Grammar Nazism - the sign that someone knows there wrong and are desperate too take any victory, however pathetic.

He has judged Hitchslap's character and thoughts (as being intolerant and racist) before he has enough information to make an informed judgment.

Irony- you slam people for slightly misquoting Hitchslap, and then drastically misquote Jai.


You Sir, should be thrown out of any debate.

You're sad.

Are you f*cking kidding me?

And the second thought was about the irony of being here, in a small countryside town, populated mostly by elderly white people, therefore likely to be mildly racists. And their town’s priest is a black guy from West Africa...I wanted to burst in laughter (I just checked the results of the last regional elections to be sure that I wasn’t making an unfair assumption, and unsurprisingly 40% voted for the far-right nationalist party…)

He wants to burst out laughing because of his assumptions he has made. He does believe Nationalists are racists. He does assume that people living in right-wing areas are racists. He assumes right-wing people in general are racists. Otherwise, he wouldn't have f*cking put above quoted sh*t in his story. Either that, or he has succeeded in his attempt to start a flame war in the Off Topic forum.

A few more interesting things he says:

1). He *assumes* the guy is from West Africa.

2). He refers to the black man as being *imported* (as if the black Priest was a commodity rather than a human being...)

3). He is obsessive enough about proving this towns racism that he looks up what party the town voted for; even though it was a minority, ha *assumes* the people at the church *must* be right wing nationalists.

4). He also treated his grandmother with mildly veiled contempt.

Chances are that this is all a story, completely fictional.

He suggested it was true.

If it wasn't, then he was flaming, and should be hanged anyway.

second part of the story is up

surprisingly enough though, apart from the Christmas songs, not much of what the priest said was about Jesus, the Bible or God in general. Most of his talk was about human misery, wars, climate change.

This sentence brings to mind an interesting point of analysis and discussion: 1) Was the priest wrong in not infusing his sermon with more "spiritual" and "religious" knowledge and making it more Biblical? 2) Should churches infuse their sermons with current political and social issues?

My Hindu temple deals exclusively with religious lectures and stories...in fact my priests are almost apolitical. Our sect is militantly against abortion...yet my priests have never spoken or dealt with social/moral issues that have significant political overtones. Perhaps people who go to Church could give me their perspective.

Edited 1/1/2016 17:29:02

The Bible is a highly political book, so even if you were just talking solely about the bible, it would still be political. Also don't get me wrong, there were plenty of religious stuff in his sermon, but he made it more in context with the world issues. He apparently also talked about praying for dead aborted babies, but i didn't hear it, my father told me heard it. Maybe my subconscient just blocked the stuff i wasn't interested in and only processed the good parts. Makes me feel like a religious person when i think about it :)

Hitchslap, your as religious as Hitler, which, by the way, is not meant as an insult.

you mean like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-E9EmeFXjk

By the way, thank you very much wct for trying to reason with these people, i certainly wasn't going to do it. They probably damage themselves more than me by publicly displaying their broken thought process and lack of critical thinking. So unless a valid point comes up that i feel need clarification, i won't respond to the random garbage comments people make in this thread.

It is a bit worrisome and sadening though, that so many people here, some of them adults i assume, are reading what they want to read rather than what is in the text; reorganizing, dismissing and adding words as they please, with contempt to the original text.

"Tell me how you read and i'll know what is in your mind, not for sure what is in the text"
Tariq Ramadan

Edited 1/1/2016 20:36:11

Wow you all took this way wrong. I thought this was a nice story, and i'm glad you found a religious community that wasn't full of asshole bigots like this forum.