|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
David H. Burns wrote:
> It's prejudice I take offense at
What prejudice do you think I'm exhibiting? That's the question I asked.
> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no
> descriptive value.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abible+belt
Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.
http://images.google.com/images?q=bible+belt
It sure looks like a pretty well-defined area, with five or six different
but substantially similar maps showing the american bible belt, as well as a
couple of Dutch bible belt maps.
As I said, if you're taking offense at the truth, you're doing it wrong.
> My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never
> seen such
> discrimination.
Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. Yet
I don't doubt it happens.
However, don't attribute to my prejudice what you can attribute to your
ignorance. A better response would be evidence that a wide-spread prejudice
is wrong, rather than simply calling someone names who hasn't said anything
bad about you.
> What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.
Certainly. But it's not like I go out picking news sources that reinforce my
beliefs. Quite the opposite, really.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |