Roland Martin vs. Dr. Umar Johnson
Options
Comments
-
How can a black man\woman address colorism in the black community with a white husband/wife? When he\she are contributing to the problem with mixed kids?
-
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »If we were living in the 60's ? would've been like "why should we listen to Malcolm X, he was a criminal he was a ? , he used to date white women, anybody that listens to him is a sheep, he's a fake Muslim"
True, but Malcolm himself also revised his stance and message in time. So you can't say people were wrong to criticize him, when in the end he had some of the same criticisms for himself.
Most of y'all arguments are about his degrees and about money for his school. How does any of that make his points invalid? Just like bringing up Malcolm's past, it's a deflection tactic and a way to discredit. That's my point.
I don't know who ya'll is, but I've never made an argument about his degrees or his money. I've always addressed the points he's made. So the first thing you cats need to do is stop treating everyone who is critical of Umar as if they are the same.
The second thing ya'll need to stop doing is acting like a person's credibility doesn't matter. Again, I believe people should move on from the degree argument, but it's silly to act like a man lying about his credentials isn't pertinent when he's using those credentials as proof that his ideas are valid. When the ? says he has the expertise to create and run a school, he always leans on his credentials. If those credentials are a lie, then that should throw his expertise into question. So stop throwing that argument out as if it's just fluff. It's not. If you believe them questioning his credentials is unfounded, fine, but honestly Umar himself should have been able to shut it down a long time ago. I got degrees. If people questioned my degrees, it would be as easy as getting my phone and taking pictures of those degrees. He seems to get ? that people keep harping on this, but doesn't seem to take even the easiest steps towards proving the naysayers wrong.
Bringing up Malcolm's past also wasn't a deflection. You can't say "Forget the white man. Let's build our own" if you are out there chasing white women. That's a legitimate criticism. The difference is Malcom addressed it and denounced his old life. Umar addresses the criticisms but he seems to get defensive and hostile about it, which is understandable when people are coming at you a certain way, but it doesn't make the criticisms unfounded.
You're contradicting yourself buddy. Your first paragraph says you've "never made an argument about his degrees and money". Then in your next paragraph go on to tell us about his degrees? Interesting. Then you use a strawman argument about no one questioning his credentials, no one has said that in here, the main point that you're purposely acting obtuse on is that he's giving black people good information but y'all choose to deflect to dismiss and deflect. He addressed where and how he got his degrees so if you think he's lying then you can investigate yourself. He even said so himself. Lastly you are purposely missing my point about Malcolm.
lol How did I contradict myself? I'm pretty sure my second paragraph came after my first paragraph. Even then, I wasn't making the argument that people shouldn't listen to Umar because his degrees might not be real. I was just pointing out why it was silly for you and others to act like that issue shouldn't be addressed. Even now, I still don't really give a ? about his degrees, but I'm not going to act like it's not something important enough for others to care about.
And here we go with the "straw man" ? . I know whenever one you bring that up, you're about say some stupid ? . Nowhere did I say that anyone said verbatim "no one should question his credentials." It's insane how you and @soul rattler have this tendency to claim someone is using a straw man and then back your claim by using a straw man. That has to be the dumbest ? I've ever seen, real talk. I said "It's silly to act like a man lying about his credentials isn't pertinent..." That's in direct reference to you and others implying that there should be less focus put on the degree matter and more one what Umar is saying. Once again, you pull the same ? that you keep on doing. You claim that people bringing up the degrees is an attempt to "dismiss and deflect." I believe that's true for some, but I just explained why you can't just accuse every critic of bringing up the degrees for that reason. You say Umar gives good information. Maybe he does, but when it comes to the educational ? he discusses, he uses his credentials as part of the reasoning for why the information he's giving is "good." I'm at a loss of understanding, why you can't seem to understand why a discussion of those credentials is pertinent and not just a deflection. Once again, I'll say, I don't give a ? about his degrees, but if he really wanted to dead this matter, he's show pictures of the degrees or transcripts or any one of a dozen official documents that people who get degrees would have access too. He doesn't do that. He just keeps on repeating the credentials he supposedly has and puts the burden on his critics to prove that he's wrong. That's not how burden of proof works.
At the end of the day. I care about messages, goals, and principles. I like Umar's goals. I think his message overall is good, but he delivers it poorly sometimes. I agree with some of his principles and disagree with some. However, Umar is just a man. He's not the mission, and he's not above reproach. If people have legitimate criticisms, they have every right to voice them. The compulsion some of you feel to defend him by attacking anyone who doesn't support him in the way you do is weird to me. It's fanboyshit. I'm not even anti-Umar. I'm more neutral on him, yet you're purposely misrepresenting my statements to be more negative all so you can try to come at me a certain way. What kinda sense does that make?
When dealing with the message then focus on the message. If we're talking about certain things where his credentials might be relevant then that's when it's fine to discuss it and question them. Bringing up degrees after Umar spoke on black issues is a deflection. That's the point. The man himself said anyone can call these schools and verify so to continue to nip at this man over this is simply beating a dead horse. If you don't want me mentioning your strawman arguments then stop using them. No one is saying he's beyond reproach nor did anyone say you can't voice certain criticism about him, but you have to expect people to counter your arguments against him if people don't agree.
? your initial counter was "People who disparage Umar also give passes to people like Bill Mahr to say ? "...that's not a good counter to someone questioning him and also presents an extreme that attempts to paint anyone who does question him on a ? side of an already dumb argument. People have attempted to verify his PHD...nobody actually has been able to and when someone has a PHD there's information that is always publicly available to verify it. Nothing has been found to back his up so him constantly saying "You call the schools" means nothign when people have called the schools -
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »NoCompetition wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »If we were living in the 60's ? would've been like "why should we listen to Malcolm X, he was a criminal he was a ? , he used to date white women, anybody that listens to him is a sheep, he's a fake Muslim"
Ultimately though this guy has to stand on his own. Not deflecting to Hillary or Bill Maher as you did earlier. They have nothing to do with this. Why even go in that direction? Thats literally not connected. Maybe this is a glimpse into the mentality of those who are subsceptible to this type of thing. Change the subject and go in tangeants and just go, dont worry about connecting dots and making sense. Play the game And most of all...get their money. Emotional manipulations work good for that not reality. And Malcolm's credentials are not Umar Johnson's. People have pointed out various real inaccuracies, vagueness, flaws, and nonsensical positions he has taken. Its not about making up points its just seeing whats there. There is a lot of foolery.
The same reason why those people on the panel defelected into his lineage and his degrees and money for his school, they had a issue with him and used those things to deflect and discredit and y'all are in here doing the same. Y'all are hypocrites ? on Umar but give passes to others that y'all like. Either be consistent or shut the ? up.
Speaking specifically of Umars situation, this lack of paperwork will always leave a question mark over his head. Theres no running from that. If Umar was a white supremacist, he'd still need to have that ? .
Had dude not came on the scene with that, itd be different. But since he did, he needs to be consistent as well. If for nothing but to keep his enemy from having it as a weapon to use against him.
His so called lack of paperwork does not or should it take away from his message and the work he has put in.
No one gets a pass for false flagging a PhD.....
His main point in the interview was that blacks cannot marry white and truly be down for the cause....
Which has been proven as ? far before umar was born...
No hate and nothing wrong with being a lecturer.....
But...
What work has he put in....????
He broke down where he got his degrees and even said to call these institutions to verify.
And his main point was not about interracial relationships. It became the focus because the woman and Roland kept harping on it.
Going around the country educating black people on various issues that affect black people.
And there are discrepancies concerning his PhD....
Which have been thoroughly explained....
And that, (interracial marriage) will be the focus of most interviews that he gives.....
It overshadows the rest of his message....
As far as his "work"...
Do black people really need to pay to hear about the ills in their community?????
From his site...Services
Dr. Umar Johnson is available for Workshops, Professional panels, Motivational and Informational speaking engagements, Lectures, Professional development and ADHD child diagnosis consultations. Call for more information.
He also has a college tour that he charges a fee to attend....
Which I think is unethical....
We sponsor the same types of college tours at my school for free....
If there are discrepancies then you can call these schools and verify for yourself, why take their word for it? Interracial dating is a "focus" because certain black people don't not want to give up sex with white people.
When other groups charge to give lectures and speeches it's fine but Umar is "unethical", you nitpicking.
They want ? for free in a capitalist society lol you simply can't make this ? up...
These guys are nothing but professional question Dodgers. All they want to do is straw mad and troll over the same issue that doesnt solves problems
I am not taking anyones word for it.....
I have done my own research and come up with the same thing everyone else did....
Nothing....
And I said there was nothing wrong with being a lecturer.....
But what action has he done????
And yes....
Charging impoverished kids money to tour a college is unethical.....
Even in our capitalistic society....
-
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »If we were living in the 60's ? would've been like "why should we listen to Malcolm X, he was a criminal he was a ? , he used to date white women, anybody that listens to him is a sheep, he's a fake Muslim"
True, but Malcolm himself also revised his stance and message in time. So you can't say people were wrong to criticize him, when in the end he had some of the same criticisms for himself.
Most of y'all arguments are about his degrees and about money for his school. How does any of that make his points invalid? Just like bringing up Malcolm's past, it's a deflection tactic and a way to discredit. That's my point.
I don't know who ya'll is, but I've never made an argument about his degrees or his money. I've always addressed the points he's made. So the first thing you cats need to do is stop treating everyone who is critical of Umar as if they are the same.
The second thing ya'll need to stop doing is acting like a person's credibility doesn't matter. Again, I believe people should move on from the degree argument, but it's silly to act like a man lying about his credentials isn't pertinent when he's using those credentials as proof that his ideas are valid. When the ? says he has the expertise to create and run a school, he always leans on his credentials. If those credentials are a lie, then that should throw his expertise into question. So stop throwing that argument out as if it's just fluff. It's not. If you believe them questioning his credentials is unfounded, fine, but honestly Umar himself should have been able to shut it down a long time ago. I got degrees. If people questioned my degrees, it would be as easy as getting my phone and taking pictures of those degrees. He seems to get ? that people keep harping on this, but doesn't seem to take even the easiest steps towards proving the naysayers wrong.
Bringing up Malcolm's past also wasn't a deflection. You can't say "Forget the white man. Let's build our own" if you are out there chasing white women. That's a legitimate criticism. The difference is Malcom addressed it and denounced his old life. Umar addresses the criticisms but he seems to get defensive and hostile about it, which is understandable when people are coming at you a certain way, but it doesn't make the criticisms unfounded.
You're contradicting yourself buddy. Your first paragraph says you've "never made an argument about his degrees and money". Then in your next paragraph go on to tell us about his degrees? Interesting. Then you use a strawman argument about no one questioning his credentials, no one has said that in here, the main point that you're purposely acting obtuse on is that he's giving black people good information but y'all choose to deflect to dismiss and deflect. He addressed where and how he got his degrees so if you think he's lying then you can investigate yourself. He even said so himself. Lastly you are purposely missing my point about Malcolm.
lol How did I contradict myself? I'm pretty sure my second paragraph came after my first paragraph. Even then, I wasn't making the argument that people shouldn't listen to Umar because his degrees might not be real. I was just pointing out why it was silly for you and others to act like that issue shouldn't be addressed. Even now, I still don't really give a ? about his degrees, but I'm not going to act like it's not something important enough for others to care about.
And here we go with the "straw man" ? . I know whenever one you bring that up, you're about say some stupid ? . Nowhere did I say that anyone said verbatim "no one should question his credentials." It's insane how you and @soul rattler have this tendency to claim someone is using a straw man and then back your claim by using a straw man. That has to be the dumbest ? I've ever seen, real talk. I said "It's silly to act like a man lying about his credentials isn't pertinent..." That's in direct reference to you and others implying that there should be less focus put on the degree matter and more one what Umar is saying. Once again, you pull the same ? that you keep on doing. You claim that people bringing up the degrees is an attempt to "dismiss and deflect." I believe that's true for some, but I just explained why you can't just accuse every critic of bringing up the degrees for that reason. You say Umar gives good information. Maybe he does, but when it comes to the educational ? he discusses, he uses his credentials as part of the reasoning for why the information he's giving is "good." I'm at a loss of understanding, why you can't seem to understand why a discussion of those credentials is pertinent and not just a deflection. Once again, I'll say, I don't give a ? about his degrees, but if he really wanted to dead this matter, he's show pictures of the degrees or transcripts or any one of a dozen official documents that people who get degrees would have access too. He doesn't do that. He just keeps on repeating the credentials he supposedly has and puts the burden on his critics to prove that he's wrong. That's not how burden of proof works.
At the end of the day. I care about messages, goals, and principles. I like Umar's goals. I think his message overall is good, but he delivers it poorly sometimes. I agree with some of his principles and disagree with some. However, Umar is just a man. He's not the mission, and he's not above reproach. If people have legitimate criticisms, they have every right to voice them. The compulsion some of you feel to defend him by attacking anyone who doesn't support him in the way you do is weird to me. It's fanboyshit. I'm not even anti-Umar. I'm more neutral on him, yet you're purposely misrepresenting my statements to be more negative all so you can try to come at me a certain way. What kinda sense does that make?
When dealing with the message then focus on the message. If we're talking about certain things where his credentials might be relevant then that's when it's fine to discuss it and question them. Bringing up degrees after Umar spoke on black issues is a deflection. That's the point. The man himself said anyone can call these schools and verify so to continue to nip at this man over this is simply beating a dead horse. If you don't want me mentioning your strawman arguments then stop using them. No one is saying he's beyond reproach nor did anyone say you can't voice certain criticism about him, but you have to expect people to counter your arguments against him if people don't agree.
Lol ? literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.
Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message? -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »If we were living in the 60's ? would've been like "why should we listen to Malcolm X, he was a criminal he was a ? , he used to date white women, anybody that listens to him is a sheep, he's a fake Muslim"
True, but Malcolm himself also revised his stance and message in time. So you can't say people were wrong to criticize him, when in the end he had some of the same criticisms for himself.
Most of y'all arguments are about his degrees and about money for his school. How does any of that make his points invalid? Just like bringing up Malcolm's past, it's a deflection tactic and a way to discredit. That's my point.
I don't know who ya'll is, but I've never made an argument about his degrees or his money. I've always addressed the points he's made. So the first thing you cats need to do is stop treating everyone who is critical of Umar as if they are the same.
The second thing ya'll need to stop doing is acting like a person's credibility doesn't matter. Again, I believe people should move on from the degree argument, but it's silly to act like a man lying about his credentials isn't pertinent when he's using those credentials as proof that his ideas are valid. When the ? says he has the expertise to create and run a school, he always leans on his credentials. If those credentials are a lie, then that should throw his expertise into question. So stop throwing that argument out as if it's just fluff. It's not. If you believe them questioning his credentials is unfounded, fine, but honestly Umar himself should have been able to shut it down a long time ago. I got degrees. If people questioned my degrees, it would be as easy as getting my phone and taking pictures of those degrees. He seems to get ? that people keep harping on this, but doesn't seem to take even the easiest steps towards proving the naysayers wrong.
Bringing up Malcolm's past also wasn't a deflection. You can't say "Forget the white man. Let's build our own" if you are out there chasing white women. That's a legitimate criticism. The difference is Malcom addressed it and denounced his old life. Umar addresses the criticisms but he seems to get defensive and hostile about it, which is understandable when people are coming at you a certain way, but it doesn't make the criticisms unfounded.
You're contradicting yourself buddy. Your first paragraph says you've "never made an argument about his degrees and money". Then in your next paragraph go on to tell us about his degrees? Interesting. Then you use a strawman argument about no one questioning his credentials, no one has said that in here, the main point that you're purposely acting obtuse on is that he's giving black people good information but y'all choose to deflect to dismiss and deflect. He addressed where and how he got his degrees so if you think he's lying then you can investigate yourself. He even said so himself. Lastly you are purposely missing my point about Malcolm.
lol How did I contradict myself? I'm pretty sure my second paragraph came after my first paragraph. Even then, I wasn't making the argument that people shouldn't listen to Umar because his degrees might not be real. I was just pointing out why it was silly for you and others to act like that issue shouldn't be addressed. Even now, I still don't really give a ? about his degrees, but I'm not going to act like it's not something important enough for others to care about.
And here we go with the "straw man" ? . I know whenever one you bring that up, you're about say some stupid ? . Nowhere did I say that anyone said verbatim "no one should question his credentials." It's insane how you and @soul rattler have this tendency to claim someone is using a straw man and then back your claim by using a straw man. That has to be the dumbest ? I've ever seen, real talk. I said "It's silly to act like a man lying about his credentials isn't pertinent..." That's in direct reference to you and others implying that there should be less focus put on the degree matter and more one what Umar is saying. Once again, you pull the same ? that you keep on doing. You claim that people bringing up the degrees is an attempt to "dismiss and deflect." I believe that's true for some, but I just explained why you can't just accuse every critic of bringing up the degrees for that reason. You say Umar gives good information. Maybe he does, but when it comes to the educational ? he discusses, he uses his credentials as part of the reasoning for why the information he's giving is "good." I'm at a loss of understanding, why you can't seem to understand why a discussion of those credentials is pertinent and not just a deflection. Once again, I'll say, I don't give a ? about his degrees, but if he really wanted to dead this matter, he's show pictures of the degrees or transcripts or any one of a dozen official documents that people who get degrees would have access too. He doesn't do that. He just keeps on repeating the credentials he supposedly has and puts the burden on his critics to prove that he's wrong. That's not how burden of proof works.
At the end of the day. I care about messages, goals, and principles. I like Umar's goals. I think his message overall is good, but he delivers it poorly sometimes. I agree with some of his principles and disagree with some. However, Umar is just a man. He's not the mission, and he's not above reproach. If people have legitimate criticisms, they have every right to voice them. The compulsion some of you feel to defend him by attacking anyone who doesn't support him in the way you do is weird to me. It's fanboyshit. I'm not even anti-Umar. I'm more neutral on him, yet you're purposely misrepresenting my statements to be more negative all so you can try to come at me a certain way. What kinda sense does that make?
When dealing with the message then focus on the message. If we're talking about certain things where his credentials might be relevant then that's when it's fine to discuss it and question them. Bringing up degrees after Umar spoke on black issues is a deflection. That's the point. The man himself said anyone can call these schools and verify so to continue to nip at this man over this is simply beating a dead horse. If you don't want me mentioning your strawman arguments then stop using them. No one is saying he's beyond reproach nor did anyone say you can't voice certain criticism about him, but you have to expect people to counter your arguments against him if people don't agree.
? your initial counter was "People who disparage Umar also give passes to people like Bill Mahr to say ? "...that's not a good counter to someone questioning him and also presents an extreme that attempts to paint anyone who does question him on a ? side of an already dumb argument. People have attempted to verify his PHD...nobody actually has been able to and when someone has a PHD there's information that is always publicly available to verify it. Nothing has been found to back his up so him constantly saying "You call the schools" means nothign when people have called the schools
I think it's the perfect counter for people who gave Bill a pass but finds themselves trying to "question" Umar. It's definitely a fair statement and the fact that that offends you is telling, I guess hit dogs will holler. And until otherwise noted I will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his degrees. -
It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too. -
How can a black man\woman address colorism in the black community with a white husband/wife? When he\she are contributing to the problem with mixed kids?
-
-
The Lonious Monk wrote:Lol ? literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.
Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message?
Because there were deflections being made using his school. And I never said that you said that I said that Umar is beyond reproach (we can play that stupid game all day smh) the main point of your argument has been you should be able to question him and his credentials, and I'm saying that you can question him but don't deflect from his message by bringing up stuff that's not relevant.
-
It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense. -
Strawman -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote:Lol ? literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.
Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message?
Because there were deflections being made using his school. And I never said that you said that I said that Umar is beyond reproach (we can play that stupid game all day smh) the main point of your argument has been you should be able to question him and his credentials, and I'm saying that you can question him but don't deflect from his message by bringing up stuff that's not relevant.
Obviously, some people believe the credibility of the messenger is relevant. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are out of line.
And yes, my main point has been that people should be able to question him. And you can be obtuse and act like people not saying you can't criticize him means that nobody thinks that way, but if you ? didn't have such a problem with him being criticized, this topic would have died long ago.
You've said that you'll give him the benefit of the doubt. They've said they won't. ? could have agreed to disagree on that point a long time ago, and steered the convo to the actual message, but you and others are stuck on trying to beat down ? who don't agree with you about Umar's credibility and importance. -
I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.
Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.
poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man
A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man
-
jetlifebih wrote: »
That would only be if you think mixed people are a problem to begin with...and also colorism would exist even without them because it's not like non mixed black folks don't come in all shades -
5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses. -
Do you even understand what a straw man is?????
Gtfohwtbs.....
Either reply to my post or don't......
I see you ignoring it....
Don't just keep spamming "straw man" all in the thread without a clue to what it means.....
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote:Lol ? literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.
Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message?
Because there were deflections being made using his school. And I never said that you said that I said that Umar is beyond reproach (we can play that stupid game all day smh) the main point of your argument has been you should be able to question him and his credentials, and I'm saying that you can question him but don't deflect from his message by bringing up stuff that's not relevant.
Obviously, some people believe the credibility of the messenger is relevant. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are out of line.
And yes, my main point has been that people should be able to question him. And you can be obtuse and act like people not saying you can't criticize him means that nobody thinks that way, but if you ? didn't have such a problem with him being criticized, this topic would have died long ago.
You've said that you'll give him the benefit of the doubt. They've said they won't. ? could have agreed to disagree on that point a long time ago, and steered the convo to the actual message, but you and others are stuck on trying to beat down ? who don't agree with you about Umar's credibility and importance.
When discussing black empowerment and actually doing stuff for his community how does that make him questionable? If we're talking about psychology and stuff of that nature then it's fair to question him. How is this being lost in translation? You and certain others question him and others have the right to disagree. So what it comes down to is you want to say stuff and then if anyone responds to your point then that's caping? -
jetlifebih wrote: »
That would only be if you think mixed people are a problem to begin with...and also colorism would exist even without them because it's not like non mixed black folks don't come in all shades
I thought he posed a valid question and I believe you gave a valid answer...his post went ignored so I reposted it...
But I'm up in the air on this debacle -
5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up. -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote:Lol ? literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.
Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message?
Because there were deflections being made using his school. And I never said that you said that I said that Umar is beyond reproach (we can play that stupid game all day smh) the main point of your argument has been you should be able to question him and his credentials, and I'm saying that you can question him but don't deflect from his message by bringing up stuff that's not relevant.
Obviously, some people believe the credibility of the messenger is relevant. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are out of line.
And yes, my main point has been that people should be able to question him. And you can be obtuse and act like people not saying you can't criticize him means that nobody thinks that way, but if you ? didn't have such a problem with him being criticized, this topic would have died long ago.
You've said that you'll give him the benefit of the doubt. They've said they won't. ? could have agreed to disagree on that point a long time ago, and steered the convo to the actual message, but you and others are stuck on trying to beat down ? who don't agree with you about Umar's credibility and importance.
When discussing black empowerment and actually doing stuff for his community how does that make him questionable? If we're talking about psychology and stuff of that nature then it's fair to question him. How is this being lost in translation? You and certain others question him and others have the right to disagree. So what it comes down to is you want to say stuff and then if anyone responds to your point then that's caping?
Nothing is being lost in translation. No one on your side has articulated it like that before. Again, people on your side have literally said ? like "if you don't contribute don't say anything" and "he's about bettering the black community, if you can't say anything good don't say anything." Comments like that aren't in line with what you just said.
It's been pointed out several times in this topic that he uses his credentials to support some of the ideas he has to empower the black community and that's why his credentials are being brought up, so why do you keep acting like people are bringing them up when they aren't relevant? Can you post a specific example of a time when the credentials were brought up in response to a completely unrelated point? From what I've seen the credentials are usually brought up with the school. Some disagree with his views on interracial marriage, but no one is claiming that ? should wife white women because Umar's degrees are fake. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.
Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.
poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man
A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
He did do a strawman. He answer with obama and that's not answering my question.
Obama isn't the contributor of a black and white union he is a result of one.
Colorism is a direct result of race mixing and its a problem. You cannot as a black man\woman say we need to stop colorism in a interracial relationship.
So let me get this straight. So a black leader can say we need to eliminate colorism when themselves are practicing that same problem that they speak out against?
The reason we have so many lightskin people are do to ? of african woman and it's not that dark skinned people are produce light skinned people.
-
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
His message consists of psychoanalyzing "black boys".....
I think educational attainment is applicable in this situation.....
-
Example: This woman comes to the black state of the union and States we need to stop with colourism in our community and She also says I love my black family. Y'all don't see a problem with this????
-
semi-auto-mato wrote: »I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.
Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.
poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man
A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
He did do a strawman. He answer with obama and that's not answering my question.
Obama isn't the contributor of a black and white union he is a result of one.
Colorism is a direct result of race mixing and its a problem. You cannot as a black man\woman say we need to stop colorism in a interracial relationship.
So let me get this straight. So a black leader can say we need to eliminate colorism when themselves are practicing that same problem that they speak out against?
The reason we have so many lightskin people are do to ? of african woman and it's not that dark skinned people are produce light skinned people.
Bruh, your whole post is full of half truths and untruths. Its fair to say that the spectrum of shades in African Americans is due to race mixing, but even Africans straight from Africa came in different shades with some being lighter and others being darker.
Colorism is not a product of race mixing. It's a product of people putting a premium on lighter skin. Euros brought dark brown Africans over here and medium brown Africans over here. You don't think they were treating the lighter Africans different from the start?
And it's certainly true that nobody can claim that colorism is bad while subscribing to it, but it is untrue that everyone who gets involved in an interracial relationship does so because they prize lighter skin. Umar suggested the same thing, and stupid generalizations like that are part of the reason you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. He has some good points, but if you let him talk long enough he'll say some illogical ? to support his points. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.
Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.
poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man
A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
He did do a strawman. He answer with obama and that's not answering my question.
Obama isn't the contributor of a black and white union he is a result of one.
Colorism is a direct result of race mixing and its a problem. You cannot as a black man\woman say we need to stop colorism in a interracial relationship.
So let me get this straight. So a black leader can say we need to eliminate colorism when themselves are practicing that same problem that they speak out against?
The reason we have so many lightskin people are do to ? of african woman and it's not that dark skinned people are produce light skinned people.
I wasn't directing my post at anyone. I was just saying cuz it keeps being said. I was just throwing the example out there.
Are u talking about the Obama meme? Did I miss something?
Now u do know u lose points for googling it. If y'all gotta Google it u shouldn't be saying it.
