Anything's possible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
White man blocks Atlanta doctor from entering her own home
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
Right, but if you read the OP article and video there appears to be only one possibility. My best guess is perhaps a combination of road rage, bad mood and some dislike of black people all combined. But that’s just a guess as we are given only one version of the story.
Your guess is as good as mine.
But I did note that the doctor over-reacted in her worry that he could've legally shot her.
I imagine why she thought so, but she wasn't beating bloody the other driver's head.
So her account of the encounter is questionable too.
Maybe he was a time-traveler sent from the future to prevent this Doctor from reaching her home because if she got there too soon it would set off a chain of events that would have disastrous consequences,
Or, and just go with me on this one, maybe the guy was s racist.
So this guy sits there for such a long time, he and the woman are in conflict, heated words are exchanged, she even records things for some time but not once does he say or do anything overtly racist? No racial slurs, nothing. If he did, why didn’t she say, he did this or said that, or better still show him on tape doing so? Pretty wimpy racist.
I had the same idea.
It's like we share one brain!
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Obstructing someone from their home isn't overt? Wow.
Were you one of those kids who kade an artform of passive aggressive bullying, who would then run to the teacher crying foul the instant your victim responded?
Last edited:
The only difference is I use it.
(I’m sorry, but you keep setting me up, I can’t help myself)
It tells me that you abuse it in ways most abominable.
Very true.
Well, that is obviously your preferred explanation. It may be right, but I would like to hear the other side of the story too.
Which one? You mean my time travel hypothesis? The more I think about it the only things we know about this.woman is she is black, and a doctor. She could be Dr. Martha Jones.
(Inside joke for those Who understand)
It’s overtly criminal, not overtly racist necessarily. What part of the distinction don’t you understand?
What evidence do you have that his actions were racially motivated? Answer, you don’t have any.
The second one.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
What do you think you'll achieve with this sort of obtuseness? Seriously, how do you think it helps your cause?
In other words, you can’t come up with any evidence to prove what his motives were or that they were racist so you resort to name calling.
Again, do you have any evidence that his motives were racist?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I reiterate my question, and would sincerely like an answer. What are you hoping to gain by this line of argument? How do you think it helps anyone?
Further, it's reported he said she didn't look like she belonged there. What more do you need? Would any reasonable person look at the facts as presented and NOT conclude racism?
I need a lot more. His saying he thought she didn’t belong there isn’t necessarily proof the he is racist. There could be many reasons that he thought she didn’t belong there that have nothing to do with race. Why do you assume that it was because of race the he thought she didn’t belong there?
A reasonable person would use facts. So far you still haven’t provided any facts that require that he is racist. All you have provided are subjective opinions and interpretations. That isn’t being reasonable.
You seem overly fixated on my motivations. Probably because you have called someone a racist but can’t prove he is and want to deflect.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Do you require a criminal trial burden of proof before you form all opinions? Are you familiar with the "if it walks like a duck" test? Hey, sometimes if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it isn't a duck... but if you see something that passes the duck test, it's generally fair to treat it as a duck until proven otherwise.
Yes and that's the point. How many stories have we seen about white men challenging white women in that way? I'm sure some media would love to highlight such a story if it happens as a "see, it's not racism" retort.
As @Revoltingest noted, we use our considered judgement to conclude things all the time. And @Armoured correctly noted the "duck test" as a classic method which works more often than not.
I'm also reminded of a trial where I was a juror where one person kept repeating "but I was not there" when asked if there was a "reasonable doubt" that the person was not guilty. That person kept repeating that assertion no matter how often it was pointed out that being there mean being a witness and thus not eligible to be on the jury.
So if I were on a jury if this were a trial, I would vote guilty on "preponderance of the evidence" but not at the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level in the absence of more evidence.