Cause you, as the official spokesperson of all non-white people, say so? Sorry, they didn't teach us that at "hate your own white race" class I'm afraid.
.
What is your assertion based on actually? Some black dude carrying a #blm sign? Who _really_ says ONLY black lives matter? The word evident is related to the word evidence, that's why I'm asking.

ctnd
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to."
.
BAM

ctnd
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.
2bctnd

ctnd
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
2bctnd

The following is from reddits user GeekAesthete regarding thew question why it's at least unfortunate to claim that all lives matter:
(https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3du1qm/eli5_why_is_it_so_controversial_when_someone_says/)
"Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
.
2bctnd

whatever... he's getting upvotes - you get voted down.

You french people are easily annoyed, aren't you? Especially by us germans, right?

Triggered?

You're not funny, you're just a bully. But you don't like being called just that. Which actually makes YOU the butthurt easily offended.

And I said 'even'...

Watch out your "open mind" doesn't implode.

You mean Reverend Fred Phelps of course. Also there's no way you're older than 15.

"What I'm having a hard time with is understanding why you're so dead-set on making this a left vs right, good vs evil thing"
.
I know it's hard to understand for you, It's pretty apparent how hard it is. So let me try to explain: the left and good thing is to accept individuality, the rightwing and evil thing is to segregate someone by positioning him outside of "normality". Not so hard, is it now?
.
"You're so focused on the issues that you can't step back and see the bigger picture -- the course of our culture."
.
I am focused on what's topic of this discussion. If I step back to see the bigger picture, I see that you King of The Hills types are on the road to extinction. The modern world doesn't need you any longer. I guess you people were an asset when it came to fight the bears and wolves and dig a few holes and other very manly stuff. But now the corse of our culture tells you to dig a hole in the ground and jump into it. Happy landings.

"Personally I'd much rather find myself "defending homophobes" - quite obviously. Whenever anyone starts talking about "the outdated concept" of good/evil I know exactly what I'm looking at. You're having a hard time taking a position between homophobia and just letting people be the way they are, cause that's so outdated? Yeah, I bet.

You still believe that the likes of you define what's normal. Well, sorry, that train has left the station and all your biting the carpet won't get it back.

"Oh, they'll stick around" - like zombies. Like, they are around, just not alive.

We're getting to the core of the problem: you guys see your privilege of definition eroding. A family is not what it was. Participation in society isn't what it was. Just deal with it. You're the past. You're gone already. Farewell, sucker.

" How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover."
.
So pro-family doesn't have a problem with gay marriage and gay couples adopting kids?
.
"Before political correctness came around it was defined as a man and a woman"
.
What came around was more individual freedom. Like when nobody knew what that word meant, guns were actually a lot more restricted than today.
.
"Wikipedia is a place where the uneducated like you can post whatever and try to validate it"
.
Nope. Its the place where a collective of individuals agrees on definitions. Academia.org however is the pathetic attempt to give neoliberal and alt-right positions and assumptions the appearance of facts. And for people who can barely speak their own damned language to look up shit and appear a _lot_ more educated than they real are.

" you can't call yourself "pro-choice" if you don't want allow someone the choice to, for example, own a gun, burn coal, or any of the other things I mentioned in my "rant."" - You're mixing up topics on purpose to lead away from your original agenda: have power over somebody else by telling them how to live their life when it doesn't affect you at all, just because some irrelevant superstition lets you be offended.
.
Pro-choice is about !personal! choice in the probably most intimate private area of a persons life. You carrying a gun and burning coal is not just a personal choice, it does affect me. You threaten my life and poison the air I breathe.

"demonstrating that pro-choice people are only selectively "pro-choice"" - How so? Pro-choice does not affect any pro-lifers choices. Well, except they're forced to accept other peoples choices and to listen to their opinions, when they would rather choose not to. If anyone is having a problem with that, maybe s/he's living in the wrong country.

That was pretty much exactly what I expected from you. You're trying to raise empathy for a bunch of bigoted bible thumpers living in the past millenium, so a babbling rant is what is to be expected. Sorry, but you people got to get used to it. What you tried to do though was to explain how arguing against pro-lifers was more or less the same as arguing against pro-choicers. Which you didn't, not even remotely, which is why I said you didn't put up.

Only you haven't put up (backed your claim) but just babbled along on a random rant.

I literally didn't ask for that.