You don’t have to do so, @ajshep. As you will see, I don’t need your response in order to show that what you’ve written is both untrue and nonsensical.
The problem is that you are misremembering the challenge that I gave you.
The original challenge was based on @Timo’s assertion, and my response, below:
Now, I know that, after the forum closed, you went back into the latter response, and wrote a whole bunch of new text; the overwhelming majority of it. Thus, presumably, like Jean-Claude Van Damme in a Pablo Francisco joke, you’ve declared yourself the winner, again.
This is within your right, of course. However, again:
a) I didn’t see your replies, because, the forum had closed. So, I didn’t get to tear apart your answers and improve them.
b) Apparently, by that point, you did not recall, or misunderstood, the details of my challenge to @Timo, which you’d taken up.
The outcome, thus, is that, now, you suffer the misfortune of plying @Jaray with this obscene conjecture—“Harry is actually quite the racist. … just because you do not have power, does not mean you cannot be a racist in your mind.”
In other words, I’m a mind racist. (Sounds like a MCU superhero!)
Plus, also, as a result, now, you’ve got poor @GeorgeTichy riffing off of your balderdash, above. (I’ll get to his response, momentarily.) (EDIT: Did So!)
My argument was not, as you contrived,
This sounds silly. I can’t say enough bad about it. I hope that you don’t perform this weird, alternative version of prooftexting when assembling your sermons.
My argument, as I stated to @Timo, is simple:
If you say there are “hundreds of millions of DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,” you should be able name at least one—though, probably, at least two, actually, since you claim a plurality.
You should do this while being able to both a) explain why it’s not racist, and b) do so within a definition of racist that bears falsification. Like mine.
Peace be unto you.