Disqus - Latest Comments for schmeirt

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:48:37 -0000

Mmmmm. God's perfect triangle.

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:43:44 -0000

On average, she must have a really ugly nose...

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:51:46 -0000

Yep, all downhill from here. Wuh-how.

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:30:58 -0000

Wow. There's not an ounce of not-purty in that one... :)

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:37:12 -0000

Oh tell me more. Where did you find this?

Re: sexyjack - 1,000,000

Xan Shui — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:50:50 -0000

Congrats on your success. You've found something that matters.

- Xan Shui

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:49:29 -0000

Wow. White girls that measure up. NOICE!

- Xan Shui

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:45:46 -0000

John,

I remain more than willing to continue the conversation, but not in this forum. It's disrespectful to this site, which I very much enjoy.

Find another forum (got a blog or something?) and invite me to it here. I'll join you there for respectful debate.

Cheers,
Xan Shui

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:48:50 -0000

Hi John,

Thanks for the post. Since I promised you last word, I'll just answer your questions:

We already have children. Your dire prediction hasn't been realized. They struggle with the same things other children do, but they are confident and wonderful.

I work in Information Technology and also run a music venue. But that's only because no one will pay me to philosophize. :-)

Good day to you, John!

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:57:23 -0000

...and speaking of luscious pillows of delight! Wow.

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:39:29 -0000

Thanks, John. You obviously feel very strongly on this subject.

The reason citing three articles by one activist simply isn't supporting an argument is because the activist cannot be trusted to present ALL the data. They have a (strongly-held) position. That's why they are activists! Because of their bias they are not inclined to see (let alone present to you) balanced facts. Conspiracy theorists do the same thing with some success. If you're honest, you will sit back and think about that for a minute and what it might mean.

I have indeed been married for 8 years to a black woman who did read this and comment as I reported. She doesn't mind me surfing this site in fact she does too! She is a model and enjoys the pictures (in fact, truth be told she likes women about as much as I do!) If you can't believe that than you have a very narrow experience in life indeed.

You obviously did offer your help - in educating us, on behalf of all the black people of the world including my wife, upon the egregious ills perpetrated upon them by the corporate and entertainment machines. She simply doesn't see it. And she is decidedly not stupid thank you very much. I wonder why you think she is?

The comments that you took as an ad hominem (I'm glad you recognize at least one type of logical fallacy but check your spelling and practice what you preach) were actually intended to provide a small tithe of entertainment to the much cooler and obviously much wiser people who have to read our boorish conversation. They are not part of my argument.

And be careful about your thinking: I'm not arguing COUNTER to you. I am arguing that you are not presenting an argument. Not only am I under no obligation to present data which you have not already presented, I'm actually not allowed to based on what I'm arguing. I think I have succeeded in showing that your data comes from a very biased source - ergo no ergo! :)

Now that you have completely revealed where you're coming from, everyone may read your original letter in the right light and my job is finished. I have appreciated your candor and your help. Whether Tim Wise is very wise remains to be seen, but he certainly has a persistent and passionate ambassador in you. Put to good use those are great qualities. Good luck in life, John.

With that (and to thunderous applause from the rest of the people here), I offer you the last word!

Xan Shui,
Yes, a philosophic philanthropist, and ,yes, a very honest man.

Re: sexyjack

Xan Shui — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:17:45 -0000

Wow. Attitude.

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:10:34 -0000

Ladies and gentlemen, the offered sum of John D's "evidence": Three articles written by THE SAME racial activist! Absolutely brilliant, John. Well done. At least we know you're thinking for yourself. (HINT: If you use Google you'll look a little smarter because you can at least have different sources).

I'm glad you are a Sociology major. It will help. Hold tight & keep plugging, though, because in your sophomore year the books get much more interesting, and you're old enough to drink legally.

Me, I'm a white man happily married to a wonderful black woman whom I choose to be with as much for her mind and her heart as for her incredible ass (ALL of which are epic). And, by the way, she's read this, and wonders why you think she needs YOUR help?

I'm more educated than you, more logical than you, and almost certainly smarter than you unless you're one in 9,000 or so - at least according to people who think they can measure intelligence with IQ tests. If you'd like to listen I'd love to have a real conversation. But until then, don't worry about it. Just "have a cookie and I promise - when you're finished with it everything will feel right as rain." - (a black sage in a white movie - uh oh!)

Xan Shui
Philosophic Philanthropist, Honest Man

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:45:18 -0000

Now THAT is wisdom! Excellent post, Forrest, and I agree completely! That having been said, I also enjoy teaching John D. :)

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:39:03 -0000

Yep, that's the nerve there I think.

Speaking of irony, my invitation to Jack was INTENDED to spark images of those stereotypes in your tortured little brain. But for you to launch into such a tirade? More than I could possibly have hoped. Thank you for making my job so easy!

To summarize your rebuttal: "Why am I right? Because it's WRITTEN, that's why!"

Pardon me, but I only see assumptions and rhetorical repetition in your argument - not premises, logic and facts.

I think you should try thinking for yourself instead of repeating the things you have read which agree with your preconceived ideas of social injustice. This isn't a small challenge, by the way. Thinking is kinda hard.

Xan Shui
Philosophic Philanthropist, Honest Man

Re: sexyjack - Reader Email #2

Xan Shui — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:53:27 -0000

Nope. Can't find a single thread of logic to that and it's rife with assumptions. I suspect that if black images had been present you would have found satisfying evidence in how the images were of poorer quality, somehow more exploitative, or depicted them in a stereotypical manner. Face it, you WANT to find evidence of inequality because it feeds a preconceived conviction that you have obviously nurtured for a long time.

That having been said, yes, absolutely bring on those black girls, Jack! With their broad shoulders, narrow hips, long legs, exotic manes of braided, black hair falling over dark, mischievous eyes set above those two luscious pillows of delight, which curve ever so slightly into a smile. A smile just for you. :-)

Xan Shui,
Philosophic Philanthropist, Honest Man