Zac We seem to be going around and around on this subject and

Concerning The whole story about the haitian that was killed, Zac

We seem to be going around and around on this subject and it's getting very draining and exhausting.

Zac, I took offense to Rush to generalize ALL Haitians as AIDS carriers because Haiti has been taking actions over the years to reduce the AIDS epidemic.

In case you didn't know, today, Haiti has less cases of AIDS than any other country.

Unfortunately Haiti is too poor and messed up for you to believe that.

To arrive to this success, the Haitian people had to take action.

They did not sit back and watch feeling sorry for themselves and wait to die. And that report, by the way, came from The World AIDS Commission and from UN, not from me. Have you ever heard of Dr. Paul Farmer?

If not find out about him. Rush's general comment underminded the success that Haiti has made and is still making to reduce cases of AIDS, and that's why I took offense.

Zac, you spent a lot of time lecturing me about the term "generalization" and all, while you keep avoiding my challenge, which is to show me/prove me an instance when the general or the majority of Dominican people ever hit the streets protesting against the lynching, the violence, and the hatred against Haitians living in their country.

You cannot do that, can you?

My friend, you still have a lot to learn about dabating.

Contrary to your academic level, facts and personal opinion/view/assumption/perception (notice that I did not mention your second favorite term "exageration") are all part of a debate.

Exageration is about streching in opinion without any proof to back it up.

Not giving me an instance when the majority of Dominicans ever protested against the violence, the lynching, and the hatred against Haitians living in their country, is my proof, and that alone supports my argument.

For example, have you ever watched or listened to the U.S. supreme court justices debating on issues like abortion, gun control, etc...

not only they used the constitution as fact in their argument but they also used their opinion/view in their debates as well.

Whenever a supreme court justice of the United States write his/her conclusion on an issue/debate it is always based on his/her oipinion/view and not on facts.

I think that's called Dissentation or something to that effect, can't remember exactly.

The use of the terms ignorance, uninformed, etc...

were, of course, directed to me. You were talking directly to me because you wanted to prove to me how my use of the term "generalize" was unfounded, but that's okay.

This is a matter of common sense supported by critical thinking theory.

When a nation, a group, an organization, etc...

does not stand up to stop wrong doing that is tarnishig the image and moral of the organization, the nation, the group, it means that everybody involved agrees with what is going on, pure and simply, and that is the simplest way that I can bring it to you.

May you have a wonderful and pleasant day, my friend.