The conflicting accounts of Nichelle Nichols meeting MLK (with sources)
- Thread starter RookieBatman
- Start date
Yes , but whose truth, and whose facts.
Harvey and Maurice.
Oh, B.S. Objective truth. Objective facts. The thing either happened or not. The woman either met MLK or she didn't. Spare me the relativist nonsense. This isn't a matter of viewpoint or opinion.
I don't know if it was true or not, but it's an inspiring story. And given what's going on at the current moment, nothing's going to take away from the message regardless of what happened. There's a future for black people, no matter what the thugs who call themselves "cops" want to do about it.
We don't own fact. We just try to find factual sources and put that information out there. I've never been satisfied with feel good mythology posing as fact, even when it's as seemingly innocent as the George Washington and the cherry tree variety. There are plenty of actually-happened inspirational stories, many of which get ignored in favor of fiction.
Last edited:
The society you live in would disintergrate without cops, admit it.
Logical, and agreed. The question afoot doesn't allow very much viewpoint straying as such. Did she meet with him in person? Next closest approximation would be "phone call". after that, a letter. All 3 are important and the main message is still THE most important but the question does seem to be about delivery, which leads to a nominal amount of relativism. But this isn't like certain crimes where relativism is far fewer in terms of being justified. And that not only is its own thread, it's rather likely inappropriate to discuss in this forum... if nothing else, the cliche if "your good is my evil" is as well known as it is blunt in some sci-fi franchises, like "Doctor Who".
There are thugs who are cops, it doesn’t make all cops thugs.
This is all well and good, but it ignores the following state of reality:
1) Absence of proof is not proof of absence
2) Anything an individual says about themself is the absolute truth unless someone else can present definite proof they're lying
3) Anything an individual says about someone else is an absolute lie unless they themself can present definite proof it is the truth
4) This is because only the individual knows the truth without proof
Our legal system in the US is based on these principles. It is imperfect, but we as a society do make the attempt when and where we can to make it work to the best of its and our ability.
Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true, and vice versa. Search for the truth. Make certain you have definite proof of it. But don't expect others to believe what you say without it. That way is unfair, and creates chaos.
The post of mine you quoted ignores nothing. It was a simple statement about preferring truth (where one can find it) to mythology. I don't believe it merited such a lecture.
Isn't that exactly what the point of the thread is?
That assumes that any facts are availible.
But the absence of proof is the absence of evidense.
I have webbed toes.
This explains everything and nothing.
Similar threads
