I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal. I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different". In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?". As long as we keep making distinctions between "black", "white", "brown", etc in practically every context...I don't think we're ever going to get there.

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?

No, definitely not. We aren't equal, so let's not pretend we are. Blacks are closer to apes on the evolutionary scale. Whites have invented everything you use today and yet you still cannot show any respect for the superior race. You will learn the hard way, boy, you cannot disrespect a white.

this place is like the most jewish place on this site.

if you want to speed up miscegenation, the jews should change nigger dna so they dont stink as much :p really, they can wash, or whatever else, but they still stink.

thats where that thing comes from "i'll be on you like stink on a nigger"

that and cure aids, because most of the nigger babies all of these filthy white whores are shitting out usually are born with hiv. you can bet that heidi klums niglets has it...lolz

Keep this discussion high brow or I'm closing it.

DerDrache you're a valued poster. Unfortunately these threads attract nothing but bottom feeders.

How typical of a fucking nigger.

A nigger doesn't like something, ie, the discussion of racial matters, so he advocates that we make it illegal. What a fucking nigger.

If I personally don't like eating meat, can I make a law to ban other people from doing it? No. Your personal likes and dislikes shouldn't dictate what other people can or cannot do.

How typical of a fucking nigger.

the fuck wha....

A nigger doesn't like something, ie, the discussion of racial matters, so he advocates that we make it illegal. What a fucking nigger.

you mean like the white supremacists who made it illegal for blacks to read, raped them, destroyed their culture, etc....


I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal.

That'd be fucked up honestly. See what happens with "Holocaust Denial" laws in Europe. And Hate Speech in Canada. Freedom is taken away :(

I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful?

to determine where you came from

, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different".

humans ARE different. Male or Female or intersex or Transgendered/Transsexual, Neurodivergent or Neurotypical, etc.

In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?".

that's probably happen in the future.

people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur.

the fuck what. Lots of people going to jail


If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

no. it would repress it and make it worse and more appealing. "why do you pass laws against it if it's so wrong. Hiding something?" The law also prevents dissenting and opposing the law. Like Holocaust Denial laws.

the fuck wha....



you mean like the white supremacists who made it illegal for blacks to read, raped them, destroyed their culture, etc....

what's your point? two wrongs dont make a right. Just because some white racists did something bad it doesn't give the black people carte blanche to do something bad.

Do you even have a point?

No, definitely not. We aren't equal, so let's not pretend we are. Blacks are closer to apes on the evolutionary scale. Whites have invented everything you use today and yet you still cannot show any respect for the superior race. You will learn the hard way, boy, you cannot disrespect a white.

This.

If all races are equal, certainly mentioning race is no problem since they all have the same amount of faults and benefits, right? By suggesting censorship of race, you are tacitly admitting that certain races have more to hide.

this place is like the most jewish place on this site.

if you want to speed up miscegenation, the jews should change nigger dna so they dont stink as much :p really, they can wash, or whatever else, but they still stink.

thats where that thing comes from "i'll be on you like stink on a nigger"

that and cure aids, because most of the nigger babies all of these filthy white whores are shitting out usually are born with hiv. you can bet that heidi klums niglets has it...lolz

This.

How typical of a fucking nigger.

A nigger doesn't like something, ie, the discussion of racial matters, so he advocates that we make it illegal. What a fucking nigger.

If I personally don't like eating meat, can I make a law to ban other people from doing it? No. Your personal likes and dislikes shouldn't dictate what other people can or cannot do.

Good post WAN!

you mean like the white supremacists who made it illegal for blacks to read, raped them, destroyed their culture, etc...

What culture? :rolleyes: :confused:

no. it would repress it and make it worse and more appealing. "why do you pass laws against it if it's so wrong. Hiding something?" The law also prevents dissenting and opposing the law. Like Holocaust Denial laws.

This is a good point, sort of. The adamancy of Jews in promoting laws against Holocaust denial proves that they have something to hide. If the Jews could easily dispute the claims of Holocaust revisionists, why would they resort to censorship and smears?

Keep this discussion high brow or I'm closing it.

DerDrache you're a valued poster. Unfortunately these threads attract nothing but bottom feeders.

Haha, right after you posted that there was a flood of retards. Feel free to close it if it keeps up, but...if possible, can you leave it open until we at least get a couple of intelligent responses?

I agree with this idea 100% and I would love to see it implemented.

I think punishments should be given based on context. Using racial slurs or stereotypes would probably garner the heftiest fines and/or jail times. After committing one of these crimes the perpetrators could also be uploaded to a database so folks can make sure they aren't hiring or living near a racist.

I am very keen on this idea and I am thinking of writing a letter to my mayor and perhaps even to the President.

Unfortunately something like this will obviously be met with much resistance by overt and covert racists.

Those who want change and a better future must unite and get these laws passed. There is HOPE.

I agree with this idea 100% and I would love to see it implemented.

I think punishments should be given based on context. Using racial slurs or stereotypes would probably garner the heftiest fines and/or jail times. After committing one of these crimes the perpetrators could also be uploaded to a database so folks can make sure they aren't hiring or living near a racist.

I am very keen on this idea and I am thinking of writing a letter to my mayor and perhaps even to the President.

Unfortunately something like this will obviously be met with much resistance by overt and covert racists.

Those who want change and a better future must unite and get these laws passed. There is HOPE.

Making certain speeches illegal just because you dont like them. How typical of a fucking KIKE, which you are, KIKE BOY.

Making certain speeches illegal just because you dont like them. How typical of a fucking KIKE, which you are, KIKE BOY.

You'd be one of the first detained. Good luck getting hired too when everyone finds out your racist nazi scum. I hope you have a lot of money to pay the fines with, haha.

Oh and you will probably say "Well there is no law right now". Trust me, it is coming. Just look at Canada, they have already many hate-crime laws in place. Don't worry eventually people will stop tolerating your hate and we will see some real change.

You'd be one of the first detained. Good luck getting hired too when everyone finds out your racist nazi scum. I hope you have a lot of money to pay the fines with, haha.

Oh and you will probably say "Well there is no law right now". Trust me, it is coming. Just look at Canada, they have already many hate-crime laws in place. Don't worry eventually people will stop tolerating your hate and we will see some real change.

Just because people are turning faggots it doesn't mean faggotry is ok. Same with your totalitarian bullshit. Just because you can pass laws to punish people who say certain things, it doesn't mean it's ok.

Kike boy, your kike colour is showing. I hope one day all your kike kind gets sterlised.

Let me ask you this, kike boy. How is it right to make laws prohibiting speeches? Seriously. Tell me.

Just because people are turning faggots it doesn't mean faggotry is ok. Same with your totalitarian bullshit. Just because you can pass laws to punish people who say certain things, it doesn't mean it's ok.

Kike boy, your kike colour is showing. I hope one day all your kike kind gets sterlised.

Let me ask you this, kike boy. How is it right to make laws prohibiting speeches? Seriously. Tell me.

So in this one post you have already demonstrated that: you are a heavy racist, Nazi (the sterilization comment sealed you in that coffin), homophobic (you asserted that being a homosexual is wrong, I am sure you would say the same of trans-gendered, bi-curious, etc).

I think any sane human being would say YES hate is wrong and that hateful regimes that genocide people based off of their creed is evil and must be stopped.

Passing hate laws would be one of the greatest things we can do as a nation. To finally TAKE A STAND against the hate and bigotry. It is definitely the right thing to do.

Now please take your racist rantings somewhere else and stop polluting this thread with your hate.

So in this one post you have already demonstrated that: you are a heavy racist, Nazi (the sterilization comment sealed you in that coffin), homophobic (you asserted that being a homosexual is wrong, I am sure you would say the same of trans-gendered, bi-curious, etc).

I think any sane human being would say YES hate is wrong and that hateful regimes that genocide people based off of their creed is evil and must be stopped.

Wrong. "Hatred" is not wrong. It's one of the many human emotions. Furthermore, you are not supposed to legislate people into not having one of the emotions we are born to have. Also, there is a difference between genocide, which is an action, and "hate speech", which is, guess what? SPEECH.



Passing hate laws would be one of the greatest things we can do as a nation.

That's what YOU, the kike boy, thinks. The rest of people who love their freedom of speech beg to differ.



To finally TAKE A STAND against the hate and bigotry. It is definitely the right thing to do.

People have a right to be full of hate and bigoted if they so wish. Dont you fucking tell me what I can or cannot do (as long as I am not breaking any laws).


Now please take your racist rantings somewhere else and stop polluting this thread with your hate.

Why don't YOU take your filthy kike garbage back to Israel, kike boy?

p.s. I am asian.

I did not say hatred in itself was wrong. It is the spreading of hate that is wrong. It has been deemed illegal in many different countries which encompass every major ethnicity. You can try to keep us down but we will win.

Yeah people have a right to hate those different to them, do they have a right to intimidate and recruit others to join them? NO, no, NO!

The fact is Hate Crime laws are a necessary addition to our legal system and I look forward to when they will be issued and enforced. It is unavoidable, it is just common sense to make laws against this evil.

WritingAnovel: Your ignorance has turned me off from trying to argue with you further. Hopefully you will see the light before it is too late. I have nothing more to add then perhaps you apply for some professional help and/or psychiatric medication.

I agree with this idea 100% and I would love to see it implemented.

I think punishments should be given based on context. Using racial slurs or stereotypes would probably garner the heftiest fines and/or jail times. After committing one of these crimes the perpetrators could also be uploaded to a database so folks can make sure they aren't hiring or living near a racist.

I am very keen on this idea and I am thinking of writing a letter to my mayor and perhaps even to the President.

Unfortunately something like this will obviously be met with much resistance by overt and covert racists.

Those who want change and a better future must unite and get these laws passed. There is HOPE.

I'm thinking that maybe we could start a movement via networks like Facebook, believe it or not. You get a movement of people making an effort to no longer identify themselves by their race, and then we can try to get some actual legal changes in place (if it's even necessary at that point).

By the way: Would you mind putting WAN on your ignore list? She/He is definitely just trolling this thread and trying to get it locked.

I did not say hatred in itself was wrong. It is the spreading of hate that is wrong. It has been deemed illegal in many different countries which encompass every major ethnicity. You can try to keep us down but we will win.

Like I said, just because a lot of countries have hate crime laws it doesn't make it right. If a lot of people are committing rape, does that make it right?

Also the only reason vermins like you are "winning" is because your kike brethren have all the money and power in the world.


Yeah people have a right to hate those different to them, do they have a right to intimidate and recruit others to join them? NO, no, NO!

Depends on what you meant by "intimidate" and "recruit". In fact, I am almost 100% certain that they can recruit, no matter what their message is.


The fact is Hate Crime laws are a necessary addition to our legal system and I look forward to when they will be issued and enforced. It is unavoidable, it is just common sense to make laws against this evil.

It's necessary according to YOU. I say they are not only redundant, in fact they are a threat to freedom of speech.


WritingAnovel: Your ignorance has turned me off from trying to argue with you further. Hopefully you will see the light before it is too late. I have nothing more to add then perhaps you apply for some professional help and/or psychiatric medication.

You are shying away from debating with me because you know that making laws prohibiting certain speeches is WRONG.

I'm thinking that maybe we could start a movement via networks like Facebook, believe it or not. You get a movement of people making an effort to no longer identify themselves by their race, and then we can try to get some actual legal changes in place (if it's even necessary at that point).

By the way: Would you mind putting WAN on your ignore list? She/He is definitely just trolling this thread and trying to get it locked.

Thats a good idea.

I think though that we could get the laws in place regardless of having a movement. Look at Canada or other nations, they had no national movement.

But yes, I will definitely get started on some kind of facebook group.

Ok, I have ignored WAN. Yeah he is definitely just trolling.

WAN might be getting overworked about this argument, but hes right, how can you think that any form of censorship is good? Even if someone is inciting hate, they still have a right to their beliefs and have a right to speak their mind. Just because you think that somebody's opinion on a certain matter is bad or evil, does not give you the right to silence that opinion.

I'm thinking that maybe we could start a movement via networks like Facebook, believe it or not. You get a movement of people making an effort to no longer identify themselves by their race, and then we can try to get some actual legal changes in place (if it's even necessary at that point).

Please, if you are going to do this, do it to a country that's already shitty where the people don't have as much freedom, you will probably be more successful and I don't want you making my country shitty.

This whole argument basically is about peoples feelings, that's the whole reasoning behind it. God forbid someone should have their feelings hurt by the evil white mans racists speeches. Seriously, grow up, this sounds like the same "racial tolerance and understanding" bullshit they feed you in highschool, where they don't care if you're a racist as long as you don't show it.

Yeah it may sound radical to you. But all good things meet resistance.

Hate and the spreading of hate, do no good for anyone or anything. You can call it what you want but it is a long time coming.

Canada is one of the freest and safest nations. They also have some of the toughest hate crime laws. I think we could do even better.

No, no, NO! Using racial slurs, stereotypes and even racial classifications do much more harm then good. Look at all the harm caused by racism; genocide, riots, lynchings, etc. It is not about "feelings" as you put it. It is about national security and the securing of a great future for our children. I don't know about you but I would much prefer my children living in a safer and race-speech free environment.

what's your point? two wrongs dont make a right. Just because some white racists did something bad it doesn't give the black people carte blanche to do something bad.

Do you even have a point?

noticing your kee-jerk reaction to him. and your past posts :p

see
Making certain speeches illegal just because you dont like them. How typical of a fucking KIKE, which you are, KIKE BOY.

:p:p:p:p

What culture? :rolleyes: :confused:

the various African culture, Mr. Sarcasm Troll.

This is a good point, sort of. The adamancy of Jews in promoting laws against Holocaust denial proves that they have something to hide. If the Jews could easily dispute the claims of Holocaust revisionists, why would they resort to censorship and smears?

I don't know. though it's more then the Jews who passed those laws. IIRC the ones in Germany originally were part of the "Anti-Nazification" programs the Allied Occupation forces did.

Yeah it is odd that they'd be willing to throw people in jail.

History is manipulated yes. see how few people in America talk about the Esstern Front of World War II and how violent that was. The Soviets took the brunt of the shit the Nazis gave them. Yes the US provided a shitload of aid though to help them and keep them from dying though.


Now please take your racist rantings somewhere else and stop polluting this thread with your hate.

are you serious? Remember you originally used that account to troll people and say all fat people should be sent to fat camps or killed off.

Like I said, just because a lot of countries have hate crime laws it doesn't make it right. If a lot of people are committing rape, does that make it right?

dudette. That's a shitty argument and could be EASILY turned against you.


Ok, I have ignored WAN. Yeah he is definitely just trolling.

WritingANovel is female :)

A black individual robs and kills the owners of a Korean convenience store after the clerk tells him he "feels sorry for his mother" because he fastens his pants around his femurs. If I witnessed this, I would say a BLACK, 5'3" 440 pounds wearing a wifebeater, khaki pants and air force one's did it. If I said it was just "some guy" and gave a height, they wouldn't know who to arrest. Even if it wasn't outright racial, I would have to say kinky hair, broad nose, etc. You can eliminate this by simply calling the suspect what he is. It is a natural tendency and acceptable, individual races would not exist if nature didn't intend so.

And most media outlets don't mention race. It's already obvious who did the crime most of the time judging by the area as well as the nature of the crime. Remember the reporter from Arkansas who's home was broken in to, after which she was raped brutally by two black men and then beaten within an inch of her life (she would go on to die) with a hammer? They withheld race as well as knowledge of any suspects for weeks on that incident in the media just for your inflated sense of entitlement. Go choke on a spark plug piggy.

No, definitely not. We aren't equal, so let's not pretend we are. Blacks are closer to apes on the evolutionary scale. Whites have invented everything you use today and yet you still cannot show any respect for the superior race. You will learn the hard way, boy, you cannot disrespect a white.

Just an idiot. More more. No less.

Oh, shit, I am thinking of a certain amendment to a constitution which makes this impossible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn't mean freedom of speech as approved by nancy black boys who know they aren't worth shit so must attempt to fine/jail people telling them so.

If you knew race was equal, you would not have any problem forming a counter argument to any racial slurs, but you know your people aren't worth a shit.

You see, once you outlaw certain words, and try and censor real life, somebody will have to decide which words will be outlawed, and as language is constantly evolving, you will need more and more restrictions, and some words which are harmless might get put in the restricted list.
Watch the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" its about the censorship of movies and the media.


No, no, NO! Using racial slurs, stereotypes and even racial classifications do much more harm then good. Look at all the harm caused by racism; genocide, riots, lynchings, etc.

We already have laws in place for those specific scenarios, if you try and take away peoples rights it will lead to more violence.

It is not about "feelings" as you put it. It is about national security and the securing of a great future for our children. I don't know about you but I would much prefer my children living in a safer and race-speech free environment.

Because Canada is so ridden with hate, violence and racism right? If you're so motivated to change things in the world, go to a country where this is actually an issue.

I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal. I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different". In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?". As long as we keep making distinctions between "black", "white", "brown", etc in practically every context...I don't think we're ever going to get there.

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?

I've been saying similar shit, although not as extreme (just never ask about race on any application or census, and make it socially improper to inquire about race or discuss it) and I swear you thought I was dumb. You might've said something to me like "race is always going to be there, dumb ass. You can't ignore it, people are still going to be racist." etc.

Because Canada is so ridden with hate, violence and racism right? If you're so motivated to change things in the world, go to a country where this is actually an issue.

I live in the United States you ignoramus.


America is infested with racism. Unfortunately doing things the "old way" (race awareness education, black history month, etc.) is just not effective. We need to take the proper measures. It is our children, our future.

I have decided I will begin issuing letters to every man of influence I can think of. We must get this passed, before a new generation gets as polluted as all these current are.

In the future, race would never even enter someone's consciousness. It will be as socially unacceptable as talking about planning a rape/murder, no one would even dare to speak about this stuff let alone think. And they shouldn't because it is evil and only causes death and suffering.

The people making honest "against" replies (not the trolls), seem to believe that some magic force will make these necessary changes to the way ours and new generations, especially, perceive the world. Unfortunately, there is no magic force. The only force we as the people of this great nation can use to make changes is the Law.

When hate-crime laws are passed, and enforced, people will change. Who would want to go to jail and/or pay a hefty fine for race-speech? This fact eliminates most race-speech from society. When most race-speech is eliminated, younger generations will have extremely limited access and knowledge of "race". Without knowledge of race these new generations can operate without racial barriers and prejudices. A new dawn will emerge for America.

I urge all those who are patriots to please do the right thing and consider my words, for a brighter future for this nation.

Idiot, heard of the first amendment?

Also, blacks are waaaay more racist than whites, you gonna jail them? of course not. They will be perfectly fine to call us cracka etc. and we must not reply for fear of jail. But you will not touch them because you don't want the nigger buck Jessie Jackson protesting.

as a white man i kind of like this idea, a world where race is of no mention. Being as it is already socially unacceptable to talk like so, we whites have already been adapting to such a case. Think of all the self-righteous minoritys that would break this law off the get go, no more race baiting( or card for that matter). Not to mention that if race is unmentionable, then all the race based hand-outs will stop for good(how could you apply?), and thats got my vote. "he didn't hire me becuase im BLACK!", to bad your not allowed mentioning race because it will corrupt the younger generation. A generation you WON'T be able to support without your welfare and food stamps, because THE majority cannot even support themselves in this day and age with all those damn racist hand-outs.

Also on that note, how will we be able to live in the richness of "diversity" if were not even able to mention it? Yes, lets outlaw race, and watch as your true COLOURS shine through in the form of statistical social failure, once the system won't prop up false numbers.

how about you put that in your pipes and smoke it DerDarkie and Ron Kykeberg.

/thread

I've been saying similar shit, although not as extreme (just never ask about race on any application or census, and make it socially improper to inquire about race or discuss it) and I swear you thought I was dumb. You might've said something to me like "race is always going to be there, dumb ass. You can't ignore it, people are still going to be racist." etc.

Not really. You were just complaining like a dick about black people being excited to see Obama as president. And speaking of Obama, I think he represents a major stepping stone to the kind of "race-blind" society I'd like to see.

Not really. You were just complaining like a dick about black people being excited to see Obama as president. And speaking of Obama, I think he represents a major stepping stone to the kind of "race-blind" society I'd like to see.

93% of voting blacks voted for Obama, Obama names a BLACK head of the Justice Department.

Oh yeah, seems fairly race-blind.

as a white man i kind of like this idea, a world where race is of no mention. Being as it is already socially unacceptable to talk like so, we whites have already been adapting to such a case. Think of all the self-righteous minoritys that would break this law off the get go, no more race baiting( or card for that matter). Not to mention that if race is unmentionable, then all the race based hand-outs will stop for good(how could you apply?), and thats got my vote. "he didn't hire me becuase im BLACK!", to bad your not allowed mentioning race because it will corrupt the younger generation. A generation you WON'T be able to support without your welfare and food stamps, because THE majority cannot even support themselves in this day and age with all those damn racist hand-outs.

Also on that note, how will we be able to live in the richness of "diversity" if were not even able to mention it? Yes, lets outlaw race, and watch as your true COLOURS shine through in the form of statistical social failure, once the system won't prop up false numbers.

how about you put that in your pipes and smoke it DerDarkie and Ron Kykeberg.

/thread

Are you retarded, or are you just unaware of the world as it existed before your short 15 years of life?

40 years ago (even 20 and 30 years ago, in fact), people were indeed not hired because they were BLACK. Oh, golly...how dare the government make it illegal for employers to discriminate. How dare the government attempt to even the playing field by giving them more scholarship or employment opportunities. We wouldn't want black people having jobs, getting an education, and contributing to society, now would we? Again, I realize that you are too young, immature, and stupid to understand this, but without the racial programs you're complaining about, blacks would be much worse off than they presently are. They had a purpose, they served it, and now, NOW they are reaching the point of being unnecessary.

Lastly: I don't know what kind of education your incestuous parents gave you and the rest of your inbred siblings in the trailer park, but if you want to have an intelligent discussion about racial issues (nevermind that this thread isn't even about that, you illiterate shit), you should avoid things like "DerDarkie" and "Ron Kykeberg", and your verbal-diarrhea flow of racist bullshit.

How dare the government attempt to even the playing field by giving them more scholarship or employment opportunities. We wouldn't want black people having jobs, getting an education, and contributing to society, now would we? Again, I realize that you are too young, immature, and stupid to understand this, but without the racial programs you're complaining about, blacks would be much worse off than they presently are. They had a purpose, they served it, and now, NOW they are reaching the point of being unnecessary.

There is a difference between evening the playing field and changing it so it's unfair for white people. You want equality and race-blindess? abolish NAACP, UNCF, BET and other organizations directly targeted at helping blacks.

But that isn't what you want, you want white people to be frowned upon for standing up for their race while you segregate yourselves and complain about it. If we started white only organizations, you can guarantee Jesse Jackson the nigger buck would protest it into the ground. Because any organization we make must be fair to ALL races, not just whites.

But you can have black only organizations, no worries.

You want to clean up racism? look at your own race.

There is a difference between evening the playing field and changing it so it's unfair for white people. You want equality and race-blindess? abolish NAACP, UNCF, BET and other organizations directly targeted at helping blacks.

But that isn't what you want, you want white people to be frowned upon for standing up for their race while you segregate yourselves and complain about it. If we started white only organizations, you can guarantee Jesse Jackson the nigger buck would protest it into the ground. Because any organization we make must be fair to ALL races, not just whites.

But you can have black only organizations, no worries.

You want to clean up racism? look at your own race.

Yes, one of the side-effects of AA was that it caused some qualified whites to be passed over in favor of blacks. Yes, organizations were made exclusively to help black people.

Blacks suffer from the consequences of racism and oppression, and it looks like whites do too. Cry me a river. (Though, the fact that you're a racist moron makes me unsympathetic...people holding the same attitudes as you caused this problem, and you're too stupid to realize it.)

Yes, one of the side-effects of AA was that it caused some qualified whites to be passed over in favor of blacks. Yes, organizations were made exclusively to help black people.

Blacks suffer from the consequences of racism and oppression, and it looks like whites do too. Cry me a river. (Though, the fact that you're a racist moron makes me unsympathetic...people holding the same attitudes as you caused this problem, and you're too stupid to realize it.)

Yes, those organizations are no longer required, blacks have equal opportunities so why do we need to make it unfair?

If you supported your own message of race blindness and that blacks are just as smart as whites, you would agree with my view on all black-only organizations and be opposed to them.

Yes, those organizations are no longer required, blacks have equal opportunities so why do we need to make it unfair?

If you supported your own message of race blindness and that blacks are just as smart as whites, you would agree with my view on all black-only organizations and be opposed to them.

Agreed.

There is a difference between evening the playing field and changing it so it's unfair for white people. You want equality and race-blindess? abolish NAACP, UNCF, BET and other organizations directly targeted at helping blacks.

But that isn't what you want, you want white people to be frowned upon for standing up for their race while you segregate yourselves and complain about it. If we started white only organizations, you can guarantee Jesse Jackson the nigger buck would protest it into the ground. Because any organization we make must be fair to ALL races, not just whites.

But you can have black only organizations, no worries.

You want to clean up racism? look at your own race.

Exactly. DerDrache, just like every other radical left, bleeding heart liberal simply wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Any and all social constructions that defy the laws of nature are bound to fail from the start. Perhaps one day in his old age, a wiser (hopefully) DerDrache will come to realize this and how potentially destructive his ideologies actually are. Until then, I urge the more enlightened among us to keep fighting the good fight against this ever more omnipresent enemy who'd like nothing more than to wipe you, the white male, and your children out of existence, all under the veil of "equality".

Exactly. DerDrache, just like every other radical left, bleeding heart liberal simply wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Any and all social constructions that defy the laws of nature are bound to fail from the start. Perhaps one day in his old age, a wiser (hopefully) DerDrache will come to realize this and how potentially destructive his ideologies actually are. Until then, I urge the more enlightened among us to keep fighting the good fight against this ever more omnipresent enemy who'd like nothing more than to wipe you, the white male, and your children out of existence, all under the veil of "equality".

Shut it racist troll.


Lets bring this thread back on subject.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!"

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

The immortal words of a true man of vision.

Shut it racist troll.


Lets bring this thread back on subject.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!"

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

The immortal words of a true man of vision.

Only now it is the blacks who are judging by the color of our white skin, perhaps a race war is in order?

Only now it is the blacks who are judging by the color of our white skin, perhaps a race war is in order?

Wow, your really a sad person. How about you go learn something before you post again.

There are many ways to learn in our society. Go to school, maybe? Even maybe tuning into the Discovery Channel or CNN may help you.

Get off my internet.:)

Not really. You were just complaining like a dick about black people being excited to see Obama as president. And speaking of Obama, I think he represents a major stepping stone to the kind of "race-blind" society I'd like to see.

I'm talking about before Obama was even running for president. The shit in your OP here is a more extreme police-state like view of shit I was telling you months/years ago that I thought should be done. But I swear you disagreed with me as usual.

But yeah, ok. In order to make race a nonissue (as hair color, eye color, or even one's denomination of Christianity basically is in the current US society) we need to ignore it and stop using it as a classification system. I agree. I don't think making laws against it is the way to go...it should be more of a social movement. Obama is actually the perfect person to lead just such a movement, and he could really get things going.

Problem is blacks are still underrepresented in high government positions and on the Supreme Court. A white president nominating a black person to these positions would be seen as progressive. But Obama would be seen as favoring his own race....he should get some hispanics and asians into the government. Imagine a fucking...asian woman on the Supreme Court. See I think that is such a small (9 people) and very influential body that there should be a mix of races and genders there. And yet there's 7 old white guys, 1 old black guy who acts white and probably used to sexually harass his coworkers, and 1 old white woman. Gotta mix dat up.

Ron, are you actually capable of forming a logical argument on this issue or are you nothing more than a living, breathing, brainwashed propaganda machine for the radical left?

Judging by your contributions to this thread, I'm inclined to assume the latter.

Being the benevolent man that I am however, I am willing to hear you out and let you re-EARN (you know that concept which, based on your beliefs system, you probably don't know much about?) some credibility by posting a COHESIVE argument that isn't a utopian fantasy, that doesn't defy human nature, that isn't advertently or inadvertently self-loathing of your own race or gender and that isn't rehashed from some other popular left wing liberal source, to defend your stance. I know, I'm going out on a MAJOR limb here...

Until then, I'll be praying you get raped and beaten by a pack of angry, rabid gangsters. I don't even care what the color of their skin is ;)

Heres a good argument you seemed to have overlooked. Try to put your prejudice aside for a moment and read. I doubt you can.


I live in the United States you ignoramus.


America is infested with racism. Unfortunately doing things the "old way" (race awareness education, black history month, etc.) is just not effective. We need to take the proper measures. It is our children, our future.

I have decided I will begin issuing letters to every man of influence I can think of. We must get this passed, before a new generation gets as polluted as all these current are.

In the future, race would never even enter someone's consciousness. It will be as socially unacceptable as talking about planning a rape/murder, no one would even dare to speak about this stuff let alone think. And they shouldn't because it is evil and only causes death and suffering.

The people making honest "against" replies (not the trolls), seem to believe that some magic force will make these necessary changes to the way ours and new generations, especially, perceive the world. Unfortunately, there is no magic force. The only force we as the people of this great nation can use to make changes is the Law.

When hate-crime laws are passed, and enforced, people will change. Who would want to go to jail and/or pay a hefty fine for race-speech? This fact eliminates most race-speech from society. When most race-speech is eliminated, younger generations will have extremely limited access and knowledge of "race". Without knowledge of race these new generations can operate without racial barriers and prejudices. A new dawn will emerge for America.

I urge all those who are patriots to please do the right thing and consider my words, for a brighter future for this nation.

For the record, I am not in any shape, way or form a racist. Pride in one's race and heritage and the will to defend it against those who would like to destroy or assimilate it in no way makes one a racist. With this premise in mind, I don't have a problem with the concept of multiculturalism, as long as it doesn't trample on my rights and freedoms as a white male. Unfortunately, in many cases it does, so I DO have a problem with the way it is applied in our society, no thanks to affirmative action, racial quotas and so on, but that's a different can of beans altogether. Nevertheless, as far as left wing ideologies go, I believe feminism and socialism are much more dangerous, much more pressing issues to deal with.

With that said, I'm not so much against the idea of equality among races (and I do mean REAL equality, as the poster paper trail I believe elaborated on earlier, not the fake equality aka positive discrimination the left is trying to forcefeed us) as I am against the totalitarian nature of your proposal. Taking away freedoms of speech from the citizens of a state is NEVER the right answer. Not only would your proposal be impossible to regulate, it would create many more problems than it would solve. Have you even taken a minute to think about the backlash such an initiative would cause should it come to pass? If you don't think your idea to restrain people's freedom of expression isn't going to piss a LOT of people off, you are KIDDING yourself. Your proposal would actually set your cause back years.

I've always held the belief that those of the radical left would do well to study more western history. Threads like these only serve to re-enforce what I've always known.

When hate-crime laws are passed, and enforced, people will change. Who would want to go to jail and/or pay a hefty fine for race-speech? This fact eliminates most race-speech from society. When most race-speech is eliminated, younger generations will have extremely limited access and knowledge of "race". Without knowledge of race these new generations can operate without racial barriers and prejudices. A new dawn will emerge for America.

Yes! We must protect the children! Our knowledge about race is too dangerous and scary for them to know! We can not allow their innocent little minds to be corrupted!

We must operate under the banner of ignorance! In the name of progress!! :rolleyes:

Yes! We must protect the children! Our knowledge about race is too dangerous and scary for them to know! We can not allow their innocent little minds to be corrupted!

We must operate under the banner of ignorance! In the name of progress!! :rolleyes:

It's more like operating under the banner of great wisdom. You can mock the truth all you want, but you can never defeat it.

Unfortunately, in many cases it does, so I DO have a problem with the way it is applied in our society, no thanks to affirmative action, racial quotas and so on, but that's a different can of beans altogether.

PROTIP: Black people are underrepresented in government, as well as various other races. HAHAAHAHAHA THREATENING THE WHITE MAN.

By 2050 HALF of America WILL NOT BE WHITE!

Nevertheless, as far as left wing ideologies go, I believe feminism and socialism are much more dangerous, much more pressing issues to deal with.


can understand feminism. but that's BS regarding Socialism, man. Socialism is for uplift and liberation of the proletariat.

With that said, I'm not so much against the idea of equality
among races (and I do mean REAL equality, as the poster paper trail I believe elaborated on earlier, not the fake equality aka positive discrimination the left is trying to forcefeed us)

Payback is a bitch isn't it. Now you have a taste of the past.


I've always held the belief that those of the radical left would do well to study more western history. Threads like these only serve to re-enforce what I've always known.

HAHAAHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAH

Have YOU read and history. Have you taken ANY NON-WESTERN HUMANITIES! There's a LOT more than that BS.


Until then, I'll be praying you get raped and beaten by a pack of angry, rabid gangsters. I don't even care what the color of their skin is ;)

Folk Nation in Chi-Town is more likely to end up ass-raping you. Enjoy getting the Gangster Disciples up in yo' ass ;)

Until then, I urge the more enlightened among us to keep fighting the good fight against this ever more omnipresent enemy who'd like nothing more than to wipe you, the white male, and your children out of existence, all under the veil of "equality".

The White Man wiped out and enslaved my ancestors. Know how we fucking felt regarding that bullshit now? Oh wait. We aren't kicking you out of the suburbs and killing you off.

Outlawing distinctions won't stop people from making them; you can't regulate thought. The US already does this socially, much more than any progressive Westernized nation. It's very difficult to have a sincere conversation on race in the US because of all the social restrictions. These restrictions don't solve anything either, you can't legislate morality, nor can you mandate it culturally. It has to be an individual revolution.

Than how would we get the word out that it wasn't a white guy who done stole our bikes?

For the record, I am not in any shape, way or form a racist. Pride in one's race and heritage and the will to defend it against those who would like to destroy or assimilate it in no way makes one a racist.

Pride in one's race, although not necessarily "racist", is retarded. Some white scientist discovering or inventing something has absolutely nothing to do with you. Racial pride is generally just a way for idiots and losers to cope with their average/below-average intelligence, and the fact that they haven't accomplished anything important. And usually, racial pride is just one small step away from full-blown racism, so...it needs to go.

----

On another note: Today I made an effort to not identify people by their race. As I walked to/from class I basically kept a mantra going in my head whenever I saw someone: "That's just a person", over and over again. It seemed to work, actually, though obviously it's going to take some time (and probably some different approaches) before I start feeling "color-blind".

I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal. I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different". In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?". As long as we keep making distinctions between "black", "white", "brown", etc in practically every context...I don't think we're ever going to get there.

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?

Race is a fact of nature, to say its illegal to speak about it or investigate it, is the same as christian prohibitionalists are with stem cell technology. I do hope that new police monitoring act your parliament passed the other day will indentify you as an activist.

Race is a fact of nature, to say its illegal to speak about it or investigate it, is the same as christian prohibitionalists are with stem cell technology. I do hope that new police monitoring act your parliament passed the other day will indentify you as an activist.

Actually race is a social construct. I have seen people who come from China, that look like what you would stereotype as a "Chinese" person, have a child that looks just like what you would stereotype a person who originates from Africa to look like.

Race-speech is not the same as arguing the ethics of Stem Cell Research, but I am not going to argue stem-cell technology with you as it will derail the thread (probably your intention).

I believe some discourse may be necessary on race at the academic level (historians, perhaps scientists, anthropologists, etc), but they must first acquire a license and adhere to strict confidentiality agreements.

Oh and I would like to add that I find it quite humorous that people keep referring to me as a "Left Winger". If you were to ask any of my friends or colleagues they would most likely describe me as "Right Wing". I support the Bush administration, and the War on Terror. I agree with most of the Republican Party's policy reform of the last eight years. I am strongly against Socialized Medicine. No, no, NO! I am not "Left Wing".

Race is a fact of nature, to say its illegal to speak about it or investigate it, is the same as christian prohibitionalists are with stem cell technology. I do hope that new police monitoring act your parliament passed the other day will indentify you as an activist.

It's a social construct, numbnuts.

The only fact is that humans come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. We're all still the exact same species, thus "race" has absolutely no meaning beyond physical appearance (comparable to tit size, ass size, eye color, and all sorts of other inconsequential crap). There should be no reason to discuss "race". If you need to describe someone physically, then you should be able to do it without lumping them into some broad skin-color based category.

Pride in one's race, although not necessarily "racist", is retarded.

how is it? It is social grouping and whatnot, but that can be fun too :D

Racial pride is generally just a way for idiots and losers to cope with their average/below-average intelligence, and the fact that they haven't accomplished anything important.

I REALLY find that hard to believe. REALLY have that hard to believe. As much as the stereotypes may be fun to pull out, the people who say "Kiss Me I'm Irish" and go to the parades, etc aren't doing it to mask some weakness.


On another note: Today I made an effort to not identify people by their race. As I walked to/from class I basically kept a mantra going in my head whenever I saw someone: "That's just a person", over and over again. It seemed to work, actually, though obviously it's going to take some time (and probably some different approaches) before I start feeling "color-blind".

identify them by other matters then. Say, whether they go to *chan sites or not :D

On another note: Today I made an effort to not identify people by their race. As I walked to/from class I basically kept a mantra going in my head whenever I saw someone: "That's just a person", over and over again. It seemed to work, actually, though obviously it's going to take some time (and probably some different approaches) before I start feeling "color-blind".

and what was the purpose of that exactly, (I mean on a personal level so don't give me speech about the racially oppressed and whatnot) was it so you could feel better about yourself for not being a racist? It seems like you're trying hard to please yourself, to be convinced that you're doing "the right thing"

My impression of you is that you think that all human life is equally important, but have you ever considered all human life is equally worthless?

I believe in Nietzsche's philosophy on life, the will to power, and I see racism as a tool used to exert power over a group of people. Assuming everyone has this will to power (which is what I believe), then how could racism be bad? History has shown that racism is one of the more effective ways to get power, so who can blame them?
I don't believe in good and evil, there are so many different ideas of whats right and whats wrong, so many different moral codes, and its all just bullshit. Things just simply are, and racism is usually one of those things that gets classified as evil.

But however if you're sure that your morals know the true definition of good and evil then by all means, continue to work so hard to make yourself "colour blind"

I don't believe in thought crime, far too 1984 for my tastes.

And sometimes social problems are specific to enthic communities and those issues must be addressed accordingly, take for example Operation Trident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trident) in the UK. Pretending were 'all equal', irrespective of the actual reality, is typical of the mentally numbed drivel leftists pump out, in their cack-handed attempts at social engineering.

It doesn't work, because in the end reality will win.

how is it? It is social grouping and whatnot, but that can be fun too :D



I REALLY find that hard to believe. REALLY have that hard to believe. As much as the stereotypes may be fun to pull out, the people who say "Kiss Me I'm Irish" and go to the parades, etc aren't doing it to mask some weakness.


I was mainly referring to supremacists who say shit like "White people did this!" or "I'm proud of what my European ancestors did".

"Kiss Me I'm Irish"-type pride is stupid, but in a less harmful way, IMO.

I don't believe in thought crime, far too 1984 for my tastes.

And sometimes social problems are specific to enthic communities and those issues must be addressed accordingly, take for example Operation Trident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trident) in the UK. Pretending were 'all equal', irrespective of the actual reality, is typical of the mentally numbed drivel leftists pump out, in their cack-handed attempts at social engineering.

It doesn't work, because in the end reality will win.

I assume you're talking about how specific groups in given countries have unusually high crime rates, high dropout rates, etc? Race doesn't need to enter the equation to fix that at all. If an ethnic group has high crime and dropout rates, then you should target the cultural and socioeconomic factors that promote that.

This is a good point, sort of. The adamancy of Jews in promoting laws against Holocaust denial proves that they have something to hide. If the Jews could easily dispute the claims of Holocaust revisionists, why would they resort to censorship and smears?

Wow nice quintuple posting...

It's a social construct, numbnuts.


Lol, that's just like saying that cats and tigers are social construct.

Having a lower brain mass to body mass ratio compared to other human type is real and concrete difference, not just a social construct.

Having a skin color and nose that looked like mountain gorillas among all your "brother" is not just a social construct, it's an undeniable evidence that you and your race haven't evolved far from a primate....

Oh, it's not just skin deep, 10 years ofter some psychos or kkk lynched you and all that remained of you are a sack of bones, people can still look at your skull and tell whether your a black, asian or caucasian, because this are real differences, not just a mere "social construct" as you prefer it to be...

hmm...must suck being you/your people cos you kno...being at the bottom of the evolution chain and such.....:)


niggy

Fluid mechanics are a social construct, man.

Lol, that's just like saying that cats and tigers are social construct.


Cats and tigers are different species, dumbass.

The rest of your post is bullshit and not even worth addressing.

Cats and tigers are different species, dumbass.

o ryl ? Look at this :

It's a social construct, numbnuts.

The only fact is that humans come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. We're all still the exact same species, thus "race" has absolutely no meaning beyond physical appearance (comparable to tit size, ass size, eye color, and all sorts of other inconsequential crap). There should be no reason to discuss "race". If you need to describe someone physically, then you should be able to do it without lumping them into some broad skin-color based category.

I mean since you said that humans can come in different shape, size and colors, I can say the same thing about about cats and tigers, too, look :

"The only fact is that these two cats come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. they're all still the exact same species, thus "cats and tiger" has absolutely no meaning beyond physical appearance (comparable to tail length, body size, eye color, and all sorts of other inconsequential crap). There should be no reason to discuss "cats and tiger". If you need to describe it physically, then you should be able to do it without lumping them into some broad size based category"

See, by this way, I can claim that species too, is a social construct by ignoring the obvious differences between them.

The rest of your post is bullshit and not even worth addressing.

Either you haven't heard of forensic anthropology or you just ignore it cos you know it's true .... really sad but true.....



sucks b u

o ryl ? Look at this :



I mean since you said that humans can come in different shape, size and colors, I can say the same thing about about cats and tigers, too, look :

"The only fact is that these two cats come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. they're all still the exact same species, thus "cats and tiger" has absolutely no meaning beyond physical appearance (comparable to tail length, body size, eye color, and all sorts of other inconsequential crap). There should be no reason to discuss "cats and tiger". If you need to describe it physically, then you should be able to do it without lumping them into some broad size based category"

See, by this way, I can claim that species too, is a social construct by ignoring the obvious differences between them.



Either you haven't heard of forensic anthropology or you just ignore it cos you know it's true .... really sad but true.....



sucks b u

Cats and tigers are in the same taxonomic family, but since they are of a different genus, and a different species (ie. incapable of interbreeding, significant genetic differences, etc.), it's an analogy only a moron like yourself would make. Stop posting.

Cats and tigers are in the same taxonomic family, but since they are of a different genus[a], and a different species (ie. incapable of interbreeding[b], significant genetic differences[c], etc.), it's an analogy only a moron like yourself would make. Stop posting[d].

[a] = if you just ignore the differences enough, genus too, are a mere social construct. Prove me wrong.

[b] = proof to back up your claims or your lying. Does it include artificial insemination ?

[c] = quantify this so-called "significant". How much genetic differences should there be before we can label them as different species ? 0.005% ? 1% ? 5% ???

[d] = suck my non-nigger dick, nigger....

Members of the same species can interbreed (and they may also be defined by the amount of genetic similarity).

Cats and tigers cannot interbreed and they are genetically very different. All humans can interbreed, and our genetic differences are not on the same level as the difference between cats and tigers.

You're a moron. Accept it, and stop posting.

You're a moron. Accept it, and stop posting.

You could help yourself by not being such a massive piece of trollbait.

DerDrache,

I understand where you are coming from - and your heart is in the right place, but we need to take the bad with the good.

It's unfortunate that racism exists on the scale it does today, but thought and speech should never be considered crimes.

No - I do NOT support racism - I do NOT agree with someone who may be preaching about how "blacks" are "inferior", but - it is THEIR right to say it, and their RIGHT to feel that way - just as it is my right to feel differently.

Your idea is a good one and like I said, your heart is in the right place - but sadly, it is a plan that should NEVER be taken into action.

Once we start censoring peoples opinions about one thing (race, in this instance), Then, what next?

You have the freedom to hate, love, respect and disrespect whomever you please. You have the freedom to voice your opinions on this issue and I have my freedom to disagree - and I would NEVER want that to change.

Interesting thread, especially the people who responded seriously.

DerDrache,

I understand where you are coming from - and your heart is in the right place, but we need to take the bad with the good.

It's unfortunate that racism exists on the scale it does today, but thought and speech should never be considered crimes.

No - I do NOT support racism - I do NOT agree with someone who may be preaching about how "blacks" are "inferior", but - it is THEIR right to say it, and their RIGHT to feel that way - just as it is my right to feel differently.

Your idea is a good one and like I said, your heart is in the right place - but sadly, it is a plan that should NEVER be taken into action.

Once we start censoring peoples opinions about one thing (race, in this instance), Then, what next?

You have the freedom to hate, love, respect and disrespect whomever you please. You have the freedom to voice your opinions on this issue and I have my freedom to disagree - and I would NEVER want that to change.

Interesting thread, especially the people who responded seriously.

Well, we "censor" people's ability to say racial slurs. I think if you take the next step and censor discussions about race, then you can help stop the problem at it's source.

My central idea is that the concept of race in and of itself promotes racism.

Well, we "censor" people's ability to say racial slurs. I think if you take the next step and censor discussions about race, then you can help stop the problem at it's source.

My central idea is that the concept of race in and of itself promotes racism.

I apologize if I'm making you repeat yourself - but where would you (personally) draw the line?

If indeed, your idea was a reality, would it also include the eliminate of B.E.T./African American colleges?

What about the people who are proud of who they are - Say, example, a black man who is not racist and has nothing against whites, but is proud of being black, and proud of who he is?

We are all unique in our own light, NOBODY is equal, we all have our own strengths and weakness regardless of race and gender.

Saying the word "nigger" is not a crime. It is the context in which the word is used, so wouldn't there be a rather gray area in who is punished for these crimes, and who is not?

I apologize if I'm making you repeat yourself - but where would you (personally) draw the line?

If indeed, your idea was a reality, would it also include the eliminate of B.E.T./African American colleges?

What about the people who are proud of who they are - Say, example, a black man who is not racist and has nothing against whites, but is proud of being black, and proud of who he is?

We are all unique in our own light, NOBODY is equal, we all have our own strengths and weakness regardless of race and gender.

Saying the word "nigger" is not a crime. It is the context in which the word is used, so wouldn't there be a rather gray area in who is punished for these crimes, and who is not?

Yep, BET and black colleges would be outlawed as well. I think the entire notion of race needs to be removed from our culture, forcefully if necessary. As I see it, the second that you put someone into a different racial category, they are dehumanized in relation to yourself. I mean...it pretty much guarantees an "us versus them" dynamic between different groups of humans.

Yep, BET and black colleges would be outlawed as well. I think the entire notion of race needs to be removed from our culture, forcefully if necessary. As I see it, the second that you put someone into a different racial category, they are dehumanized in relation to yourself. I mean...it pretty much guarantees an "us versus them" dynamic between different groups of humans.

But, wouldn't enforcing the idea that we are equal (when truly, we are not) only make the "us versus them" mentality all the stronger?

I am not racist, but it just seems like saying "there is no such thing as race" only strips a person of their individuality and heritage. (whereas, you believe the contrary)

I say we are not equal, not because I believe one race is superior to another, but because, truthfully - NO ONE is equal. This allows a perfect balance of superiority, inferiority and everything in between.

If racial classifications would be a crime, then what about the people who are PROUD to be who they are? The ones who willingly put themselves in a racial classification because they ARE a certain race and are comfortable and proud of who they are?

Would the word "nigger" be banned? Regardless of it's context?

It just seems that there are too many gray areas with what is considered racial classification and what is not.

I'm aware that this post is basically a re-hash of my previous one, but I would very much like to hear your opinion.

EDIT : It is human nature to hate. Not matter what laws you pass...people will still, and always hate. I do not agree with this hatred, but it just seems like you're trying to censor emotion.

Every word of this is true.

I have had it "up to here" with the hundreds of ignorant dingbats who write me saying things like "skin color doesn't matter" and "racists are afraid of people who are different."

The simple truth is that race matters. It defines so much about a person and a society that it is an indispensable, essential criteria. To ignore it is as irresponsible as one can get.

Different races of people, like different breeds of dogs, not only look different, they come with different levels of intelligence and different behavioral characteristics. These are facts. Irrefutable facts. They cannot be argued no matter how badly you feel about these facts. Here's proof:

What white person do you know who pronounces the word "bathroom" as "bafroom?"
What white person do you know who pronounces "ask" as "aks?"

When a natural disaster strikes, when have you ever seen White people looting?

When an unpopular court ruling or jury verdict comes out, when have you seen White people riot and burn down their own neighborhood?

The answer to all the questions above: Rarely if ever.

Let's move beyond the simple to the more relevant. In school tests from grammar school, to middle school, to high school, to college, who consistently scores the lowest?

Do the tests see the color of the person taking them and somehow magically change the questions? No. Certain races consistently score well, while other races consistently score low.

In matters of finance, who had such consistently lousy track records for repaying their debts that banks "red-lined" certain neighborhoods, refusing to grant anymore credit? It wasn't the white neighborhoods.

Even delivery services have real-life experience in such matters: Which neighborhoods do pizza delivery companies, UPS, FedEx and DHL have to halt deliveries because they get robbed so often? It isn't rural farming communities. It isn't the suburbs. It isn't the white neighborhoods in the cities, it is the non-white areas where service must be consistently stopped - not out of "racism" but because attacks and robberies are the norm.

Now, let's move on to far larger examples; entire societies.

Where on the continent of Africa have major, advanced civilizations ever existed? Outside of Apartheid-controlled South Africa, only white-influenced Egypt can boast of any kind of advanced civilization. The entire rest of the continent of Africa is still pretty much in the dark ages.

Is that because of the land? The trees? The plants? No. It is because of the people.

Africa is a direct reflection of the inherent capabilities (or lack thereof) of the people who live there. Mud huts with grass roofs and dirt floors.

Example after example exist which reinforce the facts set forth above.

Look at all the advancements in Art, music, literature, medicine, science, technology, business, industry, finance. Certain races excel at these things while others don't have a clue.

Race matters. Race is more than simply skin color.

Lets forget the rest of the world and focus for a minute right here in the USA. In EVERY city run by a black, the city suffers from rampant crime, rampant violence, and political corruption.
From Sharpe James in Newark, NJ to NJ state Senator Wayne Bryant, blacks in politics are corrupt or incompetent.

Under its first and only Black Mayor, David Dinkins, New York City had the worst crime and murder rate in the nation, with 2600 people killed each year. When Rudy Guliani took over, the crime rate dropped to around 600 murders per year.

Look at Washington, DC under black Mayor Marion Barry; the murder capitol of America, with the Mayor himself caught smoking crack cocaine!

Look at Congressman Jefferson in the US House of Representatives, caught with 100,000 in bribe money stored in his freezer!

The list of failed or corrupt Black politicans is amazing. They simply cannot be trusted. They simply cannot govern.

That's why I oppose Barack Obama even being considered for President. His race indicates to me he is simply incapable of handling the job. If you don't see that, you're either stupid, or brainwashed.

Is there a role for blacks in the world? Of course! Who can listen to Tina Turner, Diana Ross, Lionel Ritchie, Whitney Houston and others and not be enthralled by their spectacular talent? Who can watch athletic events and not be stunned by the magnificent achievements of blacks?
Who could detract from the hero black firemen who died in the World Trade center trying to save others on 9-11?

I guess what I'm trying to get across is that there is a role for all of us in this life. But when it comes to law, leadership, governance, inventing and wisdom, let's not deceive ourselves. All the races are not equal. They have never been and never will be.

For years, I have been attacked, ridiculed, besmirched and demonized for seeing the truth and speaking the truth.

In those years, I have tried - desperately - to see the point of view of those who disagree with me.

I finally figured out why I cannot see their point of view: I just can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

- Hal Turner

Ironically, the only that article demonstrates is that there are some really stupid white people out there who are only capable of making superficial observations, and don't understand science at all.

This just in; according to world-renowned psychology and anthropology expert DerDrache; committing more than a quarter of the USA's violent crime rate is superficial. DerDrache went on to say that he is tired of stupid white people who do not understand science making him pay extra for letting a whopping 15 of his siblings live in his public housing studio apartment in southside Toronto. When DerDrache was asked to submit one single solitary contribution from blackkind, he replied, "white t shirt".

This just in; according to world-renowned psychology and anthropology expert DerDrache; committing more than a quarter of the USA's violent crime rate is superficial. DerDrache went on to say that he is tired of stupid white people who do not understand science making him pay extra for letting a whopping 15 of his siblings live in his public housing studio apartment in southside Toronto. When DerDrache was asked to submit one single solitary contribution from blackkind, he replied, "white t shirt".

Like I said: Every racist argument I've ever heard just proves that there are some really stupid white people out there who are only capable of making superficial observations, and who don't understand science at all. You aren't an exception.

Zay and I have thoroughly destroyed racism from every angle, on several occasions. It's time for you to move on.

Like I said: Every racist argument I've ever heard just proves that there are some really stupid white people out there who are only capable of making superficial observations, and who don't understand science at all. You aren't an exception.

Funny, you claim to have thoroughly rode Zay's dick while he makes a fool out himself regarding racial theory yet you have not even had him destroy racism from within your very own fragmented psyche; this is not the first time in this thread that you have asserted every argument for racism has come from "really stupid white people". Believe it or not the majority of racialists are Asians and Caucasoids not considered to be white by the masses (you may recall blacks having been banned from all establishments in China during the Beijing Summer Games). Way to generalize you bigoted piece of Olde English chucking shit.

I didn't generalize, numbnuts. I said that there are some really stupid white people out there, as demonstrated by the really stupid white people who make really stupid racist arguments. You do know what "some" means, right?

Ironically, the only that article demonstrates is that there are some really stupid white people out there.

You were making these accusations before I even stepped in the thread fifteen minutes ago.

Like I said: Every racist argument I've ever heard just proves that there are some really stupid white people out there

LOL, such a failure.

Way to edit your post moron, while it's my fault for not quoting the original so that everyone could see what an idiot you are without your mentor and spellcheck; I will always be happy knowing that deep down inside, behind totse where you actually get to cover up your mistakes and your retardation, you are a genuine grade-A fucking shit for brains. At the bottom of the bell curve for sure. When you don't have Zay around you can't even make a coherent point. You're a piece of shit and you know it, and that's all I need to sleep at night. Goodbye.

Way to edit your post moron, while it's my fault for not quoting the original so that everyone could see what an idiot you are without your mentor and spellcheck; I will always be happy knowing that deep down inside, behind totse where you actually get to cover up your mistakes and your retardation, you are a genuine grade-A fucking shit for brains. At the bottom of the bell curve for sure. When you don't have Zay around you can't even make a coherent point. You're a piece of shit and you know it, and that's all I need to sleep at night. Goodbye.

What the hell are you talking about, dumbass?

LOL, such a failure.

Please take your racist rants some place else. You are just ruining someone's thread. If you do not back off, I can assure you the moderators will probably get involved.

Now to bring things back on topic; at what level do you believe the enforcement for this should be at? The federal level is my preference as it would provide the most standardized controls.

I have been researching the Canadian hate crime laws and I believe that they would be a good starting point for the movement:

"Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there could be a breach of the peace.

Section 318: Advocating Genocide

The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for terms of five to ten years. "

Obviously these laws are very elementary. But at least other nations have had the courage to start.

I believe a grass-roots movement such as the one DerDrache is suggesting would be one element and should definitely play a role in getting these laws passed. Unfortunately we will need to get the politicians on-board as well. This will be more difficult as they will be reluctant to take a stand in fear of losing votes. I have optimism though, that with Obama in office, perhaps politicians may start to feel the doors for real change are opening.

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there could be a breach of the peace.

Communicating statements of hate? Pardon me, but as I said in my previous post - it is human NATURE to hate. And, it is also my right as a human being to hate, love, respect and disrespect whoever I please.

You can make hate speech illegal - but that will NEVER make hate illegal - and most certainly will NOT cut down on the amount of racial "hatred" that exists today. Hate will always, without a doubt, exist. I do not agree with someone who hates blacks/whites/hispanics/jews etc, etc. But, that is their prerogative and their right.

And, if they want to discuss that hatred - that is also their right.

Communicating statements of hate? Pardon me, but as I said in my previous post - it is human NATURE to hate. And, it is also my right as a human being to hate, love, respect and disrespect whoever I please.

One person who doesn't hate disproves you entirely.

One person who doesn't hate disproves you entirely.

by that logic,.....a human who'd acted inhumanely puts the term "humanitarian" and "humanity" out of use in it's entirely....



asshole

by that logic,.....a human who'd acted inhumanely puts the term "humanitarian" and "humanity" out of use in it's entirely....



asshole

Acting humanely is not a part of human nature.

One person who doesn't hate disproves you entirely.

How? I don't understand that logic at all.

Hatred is a human emotion. We've all felt hatred towards someone or something, at one point in our lives - whether we like to admit it or not.

EDIT : Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am wrong. And, just because I disagree with you, does not mean YOU are wrong.

Could you perhaps, elaborate - or contribute anything more than a single sentence - as to WHY that disproves what I am saying?

We both feel opposite ways about this issue, because that is our OPINION. Neither of us is wrong - and last time I checked, this was a discussion about outlawing race, not a teenage, finger pointing "you're wrong, I'm right" argument.

And, besides - that wasn't even the point I was trying to make. I'm more or less concerned with what would be considered hate speech/racial classifications and what would not.

How? I don't understand that logic at all.

Hatred is a human emotion. We've all felt hatred towards someone or something, at one point in our lives - whether we like to admit it or not.

EDIT : Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am wrong. And, just because I disagree with you, does not mean YOU are wrong.

Could you perhaps, elaborate - or contribute anything more than a single sentence - as to WHY that disproves what I am saying?

We both feel opposite ways about this issue, because that is our OPINION. Neither of us is wrong - and last time I checked, this was a discussion about outlawing race, not a teenage, finger pointing "you're wrong, I'm right" argument.

Just because hate is a human emotion, that doesn't mean that people are destined to be racist forever. Humans tend to always have a self-serving "in-group" bias, but there's no reason that race has to be one of those groups. That only is the current case because we've been raised to think that we aren't part of a united species, but several different "races". Remove race from schools, the media, politics, and entertainment, make it a socially unacceptable, primitive topic (in the same way that racist views are generally considered socially unacceptable and primitive), and that's the first big step toward getting rid of racism, IMO.

There is a reason for that different cultures and races would not exist if it weren't for racism and segregation; if it weren't for the gradual evolution of distinct racial groups we'd all be rolling in our own shit right now in the middle of Kenya. If we were to go BACK to the homogeneous makeup of man we would be going right back to where we started, fellating cows and fucking goats in our mud huts, as the biodiversity and qualities of separate races (iq, talent, ingenuity) would stagnate. Let's not forget who is who as far as worldwide racial minorities go.

How? I don't understand that logic at all.

Hatred is a human emotion. We've all felt hatred towards someone or something, at one point in our lives - whether we like to admit it or not.

EDIT : Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am wrong. And, just because I disagree with you, does not mean YOU are wrong.

Could you perhaps, elaborate - or contribute anything more than a single sentence - as to WHY that disproves what I am saying?

We both feel opposite ways about this issue, because that is our OPINION. Neither of us is wrong - and last time I checked, this was a discussion about outlawing race, not a teenage, finger pointing "you're wrong, I'm right" argument.

And, besides - that wasn't even the point I was trying to make. I'm more or less concerned with what would be considered hate speech/racial classifications and what would not.

Human nature has to apply to EVERYONE, and finding even one person who does not feel hate (they are out there, I'd assume the Dalai Lama is one) would completely invalidate this idea of human nature. It's thus clear that hate is a product of nurture and not of nature, and so the idea that "everyone will always hate" is empirically incorrect, not just a disagreement.

Human nature has to apply to EVERYONE, and finding even one person who does not feel hate (they are out there, I'd assume the Dalai Lama is one) would completely invalidate this idea of human nature. It's thus clear that hate is a product of nurture and not of nature, and so the idea that "everyone will always hate" is empirically incorrect, not just a disagreement.

If it is an idea of nurture, not nature - then the people who hate already, will typically spread/pass on that hatred.

The PROBLEM is hate, not racial classifications. Making racial classifications taboo will not make racial hate go away - because the root of the problem is not racism itself, but hate - period.

Yes, it's stupid, it's wrong - and it's above all fucked up - but how would removing racial classifications stop hate crime/racism?

we'd all be rolling in our own shit right now in the middle of Kenya. If we were to go BACK to the homogeneous makeup of man we would be going right back to where we started, fellating cows and fucking goats in our mud huts,

You can't really hope to be taken seriously when you spew retarded bullshit like that, can you?

DerDrache, you clearly cannot even make a POINT to argue on these forums without Zay around to back you up. If you don't have anything constructive to add, only berating comments about other people's intelligence, might I ask why you even post at all? It is quite humorous, but somewhat annoying and it's a waste of bandwidth/page space. Think about that.

You can't really hope to be taken seriously when you spew retarded bullshit like that, can you?

Ignore him.

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who exist in this conversation are myself(Midge), DerDrache and nshanin.

Everyone else is spewing utter shite.

Acting humanely is not a part of human nature.

So why is it called "acting humanely" ??

with *HUMAN* being the root word here ???

============================

Attention : DerDarky, if I beat you in this thread would you commit suicide ?

So why is it called "acting humanely" ??

with *HUMAN* being the root word here ???

============================

Attention : DerDarky, if I beat you in this thread would you commit suicide ?

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+humane&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Just stop trolling, please. Take it anywhere but here.

If it is an idea of nurture, not nature - then the people who hate already, will typically spread/pass on that hatred.

The PROBLEM is hate, not racial classifications. Making racial classifications taboo will not make racial hate go away - because the root of the problem is not racism itself, but hate - period.

Yes, it's stupid, it's wrong - and it's above all fucked up - but how would removing racial classifications stop hate crime/racism?

Think about it: If hate is a socially-created state of mind, then if there was no hate in society there would be no hate in the individual. So the first order of business is to remove hate from the social sphere. The easiest way of doing that is through censorship. It won't make it go away, but it will make it quite a bit less prevalent. Studies have shown that children who watch violent television become violent themselves. If we censor violent TV right now in order to prevent a violent state of mind in our future adults, why not do the same with race?

The thing we should be striving for here is to respect everyone as a human being. Hate is a symptom, not the cause. General racial distinction laws would make a lot more sense than laws against using racial slurs.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+humane&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Just stop trolling, please. Take it anywhere but here.

!!!????:confused:????!!!!



etymology : c.1450, variant of human, used interchangeably with it until early 18c., when it began to be a distinct word with sense of "having qualities befitting human beings."

definition : Humane
Hu*mane"\, a. [L. humanus: cf. F. humain. See Human.]

1. Pertaining to man; human. [Obs.] --Jer. Taylor.

2. Having the feelings and inclinations creditable to man; having a disposition to treat other human beings or animals with kindness; kind; benevolent.

Of an exceeding courteous and humane inclination. --Sportswood.

3. Humanizing; exalting; tending to refine.

Syn: Kind; sympathizing; benevolent; mild; compassionate; gentle; tender; merciful. -- Hu*mane"ly, adv. -- Hu*mane"ness, n.



Can you see it now that the word "humane" is derived from the good quality of human nature itself ??? Which is why the word "human" is used as the root word ??..... no ??

Studies have shown that children who watch violent television become violent themselves. If we censor violent TV right now in order to prevent a violent state of mind in our future adults, why not do the same with race?

Arhahahahahahh.......yeah rite.

Alexander the Great must have been watching too much 24/Band of Brothers and that it made him inclined to commit violent conquest....and murder...and maybe Caligula too. So did Atilia, Genghis, Hitler, Yamashita (w/e).....

Oh, that and the romans must have been watching too much WWE, and so, Jesus was put through violent and bloody crucifixion ....

So,...tell me...what violent tv shows did the medival english men watched that had inspired them to use "quartering" ??? as a punishment ???

I can't think of any.....


pfffftttt...anti-violent assholes.

==========================

UPDATE :

Oh, and the first dinosaur must have watched National Geographic and learned how to violently and bloodily bite the shit out of another dinosaur....how's that for your "tv inflicted" violent tendency theories ???? huh ????


asshole..

I am not going to read the whole thread cause quite frankly the idea is srsly retarded:


We don't need some universal respect bullshit.

We do not need to outlaw free speech.

We do not need to rid the world of hate.

You need to grow up and realise that not everyone is going to like you and not necessarily for any good reason. Some people might call you names, but wait don't go crying to mummy just grow some fucking balls and accept it.

If it does go further than naming you as a certain race combined with some derogatory term most civilised countries already have laws for this. If I want to call you a melon muching darkie slave does it really hurt your feelings that much?

I am not a racist but I support their right to say racist things just as I think your should be allowed to shout anything you like back.

Arhahahahahahh.......yeah rite.

Alexander the Great must have been watching too much 24/Band of Brothers and that it made him inclined to commit violent conquest....and murder...and maybe Caligula too. So did Atilia, Genghis, Hitler, Yamashita (w/e).....

Oh, that and the romans must have been watching too much WWE, and so, Jesus was put through violent and bloody crucifixion ....

So,...tell me...what violent tv shows did the medival english men watched that had inspired them to use "quartering" ??? as a punishment ???

I can't think of any.....


pfffftttt...anti-violent assholes.

==========================

UPDATE :

Oh, and the first dinosaur must have watched National Geographic and learned how to violently and bloodily bite the shit out of another dinosaur....how's that for your "tv inflicted" violent tendency theories ???? huh ????


asshole..

QFT.

Look at Hitler. I highly doubt he ever saw House of 1000 Corpses. In fact it seems like his favorite forms of entertainment were Wagner and painting shitty pictures. Doesn't sound so violent. O yeah and then he decided that every Jew/Gypsy/Homo must die....

I almost forgot, he was also a non-smoking vegetarian.

Fuck censorship. If I want to watch some crazy shit on my computer or television, it's my right and I am not hurting anyone.

Censorship is just going to help lazy morons who don't take the time to raise their children and don't take the effort to instill in them personal responsibility, decency and tolerance of others. The kinds of values should not come from, nor be affected by media.

ok not a single person here got to pick what race they were born as did they?(yea thought so)so there is really no sense in arguing about faults in ones race.also derdrache i (and probably everyone else too) am sick of hearing you bitch and try to take away other peoples rights you ignorant,selfish asshole.

also how is it fair that(hypothetically)if you and i are from the same neighborhood and get the same test scores in high school. and we apply to go to the same job or college you will get accepted into said college or job before i will

I am not going to read the whole thread cause quite frankly the idea is srsly retarded:


We don't need some universal respect bullshit.

We do not need to outlaw free speech.

We do not need to rid the world of hate.

You need to grow up and realise that not everyone is going to like you and not necessarily for any good reason. Some people might call you names, but wait don't go crying to mummy just grow some fucking balls and accept it.

If it does go further than naming you as a certain race combined with some derogatory term most civilised countries already have laws for this. If I want to call you a melon muching darkie slave does it really hurt your feelings that much?

I am not a racist but I support their right to say racist things just as I think your should be allowed to shout anything you like back.

"I may not agree with what you say, I will defend you're right to say it." - Voltaire.

I pulled that quote off the top of my head, so it may be variated a little (hope this doesn't make me lose credibility - and most of all, I hope to God it was Voltaire who said it).

But, sir, while harsh - I see eye to eye with you on everything you said.

Methematician, you have succeeded, I will no longer be responding to your ridiculous replies.

Methematician, you have succeeded, I will no longer be responding to your ridiculous replies.

That man's (mathematician) lack of intelligence is astounding.

edit: I would like to see a feature added to Totse where the OP can modify who he will allow to post in his threads.

That man's (mathematician) lack of intelligence is astounding.

edit: I would like to see a feature added to Totse where the OP can modify who he will allow to post in his threads.

Voltaire said, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

Ron Kikeberg, this is totse, a website which would not have have existed for the last 19 years without freedom of speech. If you disagree with the speech here, perhaps you would be better off in a pussy country like Canada.

Voltaire said, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

Ron Kikeberg, this is totse, a website which would not have have existed for the last 19 years without freedom of speech. If you disagree with the speech here, perhaps you would be better off in a pussy country like Canada.

I don't know about you but I would love some pussy right about now.

Voltaire said, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

Ron Kikeberg, this is totse, a website which would not have have existed for the last 19 years without freedom of speech. If you disagree with the speech here, perhaps you would be better off in a pussy country like Canada.

I don't care what Voltaire said. Just because a philosopher says something does not make it right or true.

And I completely disagree with what you said about TOTSE. Perhaps some of the extreme threads would not be there. But they should not be there (bomb making, racist comments, drug dealing threads) in the first place. The only reason TOTSE is allowed to have these illegal threads is because the internet right now is sort of like an unregulated loophole, which I believe will and should change in the future.

No, no, NO! I would never leave America and go to Canada. I love my country to death, but I understand there are areas where we are a little bit behind. Canada is moving in the right direction and it is high-time that we start following, and perhaps if we have courage, start leading in this direction. Canada has the courage to stand up for little guy, something I know America likes. I am sure Obama will get stuff like this passed eventually.

Oh and lay off the racial insults please. Have some tact.

-Ronshim Morrie Smythberg

Methematician, you have succeeded, I will no longer be responding to your ridiculous replies.

It's funny how and when an anti-racist react when confronted irrefutable logics and facts....they reacted just like a racist would, that is to ignore, and became an ignorantee...granted that ignorance is bliss....but it doesn't make you right. Period.

And the fact that you're ignoring me motivates me want to post even more, cos when a so-called "RATIONALIST" wanna-be did the irrational thing (ignoring the facts and logic I presented) it's shows just how right I am. I mean if you can easily refute my logic, you would have done so in a heart beat...right ???

And to think the issue would just go away if you ignore them enough is just assholated. And this is not just about you. The reason I've make your argument look stupid is not just to "get to you", it's about showing hundreds and maybe thousands of other viewers out there on just how stupid you are....and how invalid your opinion is.....

It's about informing and educating the others....so.....ignore me all you want. ;)

That man's (mathematician) lack of intelligence is astounding.

I assume you have concrete evidence to back up your claim...

edit: I would like to see a feature added to Totse where the OP can modify who he will allow to post in his threads.

Yes,....sure, but remember it goes both ways, so don't cry and complain and post in B&M when you and DerDarky are not allowed to post in almost 90% of the threads in totse....lawl...

Oh, and btw....if you didn't know it already, there a place with policies just like you'd mentioned. It's called stormfront[dot]org....

I don't care what Voltaire said. Just because a philosopher says something does not make it right or true.

And I completely disagree with what you said about TOTSE. Perhaps some of the extreme threads would not be there. But they should not be there (bomb making, racist comments, drug dealing threads) in the first place. The only reason TOTSE is allowed to have these illegal threads is because the internet right now is sort of like an unregulated loophole, which I believe will and should change in the future.

No, no, NO! I would never leave America and go to Canada. I love my country to death, but I understand there are areas where we are a little bit behind. Canada is moving in the right direction and it is high-time that we start following, and perhaps if we have courage, start leading in this direction. Canada has the courage to stand up for little guy, something I know America likes. I am sure Obama will get stuff like this passed eventually.

Oh and lay off the racial insults please. Have some tact.

-Ronshim Morrie Smythberg

Unfortunately for you, Obama cannot pass something prohibiting freedom of speech. If you loved America, you would also love freedom of speech. You have to take the good with the bad, you can't just limit what someone can say because you don't agree with it.

"Canada has the courage to stand up for the little guy"

I hope by this you don't mean minorities, since whites are quite possibly the most prejudiced against.

Go to www.totse.com

What is right up there at the top of the page?

You think totse would be able to exist if it wasn't for freedom of speech?

It's funny how and when an anti-racist react when confronted irrefutable logics and facts....they reacted just like a racist would, that is to ignore, and became an ignorantee...granted that ignorance is bliss....but it doesn't make you right. Period.

And the fact that you're ignoring me motivates me want to post even more, cos when a so-called "RATIONALIST" wanna-be did the irrational thing (ignoring the facts and logic I presented) it's shows just how right I am. I mean if you can easily refute my logic, you would have done so in a heart beat...right ???

And to think the issue would just go away if you ignore them enough is just assholated. And this is not just about you. The reason I've make your argument look stupid is not just to "get to you", it's about showing hundreds and maybe thousands of other viewers out there on just how stupid you are....and how invalid your opinion is.....

It's about informing and educating the others....so.....ignore me all you want. ;)

I don't respond to trolls. I don't care if you're a racist, your arguments are just childish and not worthy of this forum in the least. If you were right I would have admitted it or just not responded, but you're wrong and just not worth my time. Don't be an idiot, you know exactly what you're doing.

I don't respond to trolls. I don't care if you're a racist, your arguments are just childish and not worthy of this forum in the least. If you were right I would have admitted it or just not responded, but you're wrong and just not worth my time. Don't be an idiot, you know exactly what you're doing.

Centuries ago, a man named Galileo postulates that.....the earth orbits around the sun...and thus conferred the title "TROLL OF THE CENTURY".....and was ignored. And was ridiculed. And was shunned.

And was burned at stake.

I don't respond to trolls. I don't care if you're a racist, your arguments are just childish and not worthy of this forum in the least. If you were right I would have admitted it or just not responded, but you're wrong and just not worth my time. Don't be an idiot, you know exactly what you're doing.

Amen to that, brother.

I don't respond to trolls. I don't care if you're a racist, your arguments are just childish and not worthy of this forum in the least. If you were right I would have admitted it or just not responded, but you're wrong and just not worth my time. Don't be an idiot, you know exactly what you're doing.

So, you can't prove him wrong so you claim that he is wrong but you just can't be bothered proving it?

Seems like loser talk to me.

I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal. I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different". In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?". As long as we keep making distinctions between "black", "white", "brown", etc in practically every context...I don't think we're ever going to get there.

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?


if it were any other race thread I might be tempted to shut up robert plywood/huggy bear/dread_lord or whoever the resident unenlightened skinbrain is this time(looks like methmatician), but this topic is too much trollbait. Can't be fucked. Dumb topic.

Just for kicks...

Arhahahahahahh.......yeah rite.

Alexander the Great must have been watching too much 24/Band of Brothers and that it made him inclined to commit violent conquest....and murder...and maybe Caligula too. So did Atilia, Genghis, Hitler, Yamashita (w/e).....

Oh, that and the romans must have been watching too much WWE, and so, Jesus was put through violent and bloody crucifixion ....

So,...tell me...what violent tv shows did the medival english men watched that had inspired them to use "quartering" ??? as a punishment ???

I can't think of any.....


pfffftttt...anti-violent assholes.

==========================

UPDATE :

Oh, and the first dinosaur must have watched National Geographic and learned how to violently and bloodily bite the shit out of another dinosaur....how's that for your "tv inflicted" violent tendency theories ???? huh ????


asshole..

I'm guessing you're trying to argue that crime is inherent? Then why are the majority of prisoners [for violent offenses, drug users shouldn't be included in statistics] of all races less likely to hold bachelors degrees, masters, and phds?

Could it be that proper education makes you less prone to violence? Or should I expect that a high school dropout and a college freshman both have the same outlook on violence, and both think that it's appropriate in the same situations, and both have been taught by their parents how to put aside their emotions and think about the consequences of their actions? Maybe it's the differences between mine and alexander the greats' cultures that tell me that it's not OK to slaughter people and told him that it warfare was a part of life.

If blacks are genetically more "violent" then why do native americans(or indians) have a higher incarceration rate, and higher crime rates in the US?

From 1976 to 2001 an estimated 3,738 American Indians were murdered.
Among American Indians age 25 to 34, the rate of violent crime victimizations was more than 2½ times the rate for all persons the same age.
Rates of violent victimization for both males and females were higher for American Indians than for all races.
source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/aic02.htm)

Your update is laughable. Most of the food i eat has been killed at one point. I don't go around killing other people because I don't live in an environment where I find it necessary to kill in self-defense or to keep from starving. I guess if you're as dumb as an animal you might hold yourself to the same standards as them...

Just for kicks...

yea...yea ..yea..you sure like a firm kick to your ass...don't cha..

I'm guessing you're trying to argue that crime is inherent?

omg ! that is so lawl, LOlOLOLO !!!1!! You can't even differentiate between the word *CRIME* and *VIOLENCE*. Pls refer to a dicktionary....

Then why are the majority of prisoners [for violent offenses, drug users shouldn't be included in statistics] of all races less likely to hold bachelors degrees, masters, and phds?

MY GOD .... You are dumb.

[a] conviction in court does not reflect the true statistic, especially when considering :

[i] the corrupted state of the current US justice system

[ii] people with bachelors /phds / masters are more likely to have higher than average income, thereby have access to a BETTER lawyer...thus are less likely to get convicted.

The same thing with a well "TRAINED ELECTRICIAN IS LESS LIKELY TO GET ELECTROCUTED".....compared to that dude nobody......

ie; being more educated means they knew more about the law and ways to circumvent them, and the ability to plan a perfect crime and get decent alibis compared to an uneducated "joe"

[c] The fact you used "A CRIME STATISTIC" as a counter argument for this "TV INFLICTS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR" debate says alot about you...and your kind of people...low IQ is certainly among it.....

lawl asshole...

Could it be that proper education makes you less prone to violence?

NO. it is in fact, the other way round. People with less violence tendencies is more likely to be patience enough to sit in school and complete their proper education without getting into trouble in the first place.

Or should I expect that a high school dropout and a college freshman both have the same outlook on violence, and both think that it's appropriate in the same situations, and both have been taught by their parents how to put aside their emotions and think about the consequences of their actions?

Do you have a *real* statistic to support this notion of yours ?

Maybe it's the differences between mine and alexander the greats' cultures that tell me that it's not OK to slaughter people and told him that it warfare was a part of life.

Irrelevant. BTW,....your so called "culture" is just as violence. I mean hey,..scalping time !

If blacks are genetically more "violent"[1] then why do [B]native americans(or indians)[2] have a higher incarceration rate, and higher crime rates in the US?


My God...your retardation and assholation, they're unbelievable.........I strongly suggests that you gracefully relinquish your modship and hand'it over to me instead....

[1] Which part of my post that you'd quoted specifically states that "BLACKS ARE MORE PRONE TO VIOLENT BEHAVIOR" ????

[2] The term "NATIVE AMERICAN" is not even a real term to denote a "RACE" in it's proper sense....note :

American Indian and Alaska Native are terms describing a person whose origins
are in any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South America and
who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

You can be a 1/8 of native/anything and if your able to provide a valid "tribal affiliation" your an native Indian already.

asshole

Your update is laughable. Most of the food i eat has been killed at one point. I don't go around killing other people because I don't live in an environment where I find it necessary to kill in self-defense or to keep from starving. I guess if you're as dumb as an animal you might hold yourself to the same standards as them...

Have you have a higher INTELLIGENCE, you would know what I'm trying to say here is violence / violent behaviors are both natural and instinctive and are inherent within us and not due to some "violent tv shows"

But I won't blame you for your stupidity tho....since your DNAs are less evolved and are inferior compared to mine.....

In short,....spics should have no right to speak, thank you very much....

I assume you're talking about how specific groups in given countries have unusually high crime rates, high dropout rates, etc?

What is there to assume, I've given people a link to explain what Operation Trident is about.

Race doesn't need to enter the equation to fix that at all. If an ethnic group has high crime and dropout rates, then you should target the cultural and socioeconomic factors that promote that.

How do you fix "cultural and socioeconomic factors" that are specific to the black community, if no one is allowed to talk about the black (or any other) community!?

How do you fix "cultural and socioeconomic factors" that are specific to the black community, if no one is allowed to talk about the black (or any other) community!?

If people are "broken", then you fix them. "Race" doesn't have anything to do with it.

How do you fix "cultural and socioeconomic factors" that are specific to the black community, if no one is allowed to talk about the black (or any other) community!?

If people are "broken", then you fix them. "Race" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Empty rhetoric.

And the sad thing is you'd fail the black community (in this country at least) by spouting it.

Have you have a higher INTELLIGENCE, you would know what I'm trying to say here is violence / violent behaviors are both natural and instinctive and are inherent within us and not due to some "violent tv shows"

Next time don't make so many stupid points then. I can use the same points you just made to argue against racism. Your bullshit covered so many topics that when I scrolled past your post it caught my eye.

Violence is natural, but for kids that aren't raised in a violent environment, kids that don't hunt or watch their parents hunt, kids that are raised by good parents, tv has some degree of influence on them. Ultimately it's up to the parents to explain it all to them. Why would you waste your time saying "lawl alexander the great and dinosaurs didn't watch power rangers so tv can't make you violent!"? The effect has been noticed by lots of psychological research.

Empty rhetoric.

And the sad thing is you'd fail the black community (in this country at least) by spouting it.

How the hell is it empty rhetoric? Social, cultural, and economic conditions are the cause of their problems, not race, thus race has nothing to do with fixing the problems. Are you trolling or is this really that complicated?

How the hell is it empty rhetoric? Social, cultural, and economic conditions are the cause of their problems, not race, thus race has nothing to do with fixing the problems. Are you trolling or is this really that complicated?

DerDrache you really need to overcome the internalized racism from which you suffer. Nowhere in this thread have I said that Operation Trident is needed because of race. You simply assume that because I'm talking about black people, I think it is because they are black that these problems exist.

But that aside, this law would be laughably ineffective for so many other reasons.

Banning descriptive words does not make them go away especially when the racial differences that give rise to them are, quite literally, staring you in the face. Pretending it isn't there in the belief it will magically go away is utterly delusional. History books would have to be burnt and rewritten, black people fined for calling each other "brother" (don't even bother playing the game that this is not a racial term of endearment), the list goes on and on...

And what about the use of racial descriptions in situations which are unquestionably defined by race, for example, the drive to increase enthic blood donations? (http://www.ethnicnow.com/channels/health-lifestyle/press-release/12/1420/national-blood-service-launches-drive-for-more-black-and-asian-blood-donors.html) You cannot eradicate a word from the volcabulary and still use it in certain positive and necessary situations. There would have to be so many exceptions to the rule that the rule would be all but worthless.

To suggest otherwise is asinine.

Social, cultural, and economic conditions are the cause of their problems, not race, thus race has nothing to do with fixing the problems

You are claiming causation.

Prove it or shut your black hole.


lol black hole

Think about it: If hate is a socially-created state of mind, then if there was no hate in society there would be no hate in the individual. So the first order of business is to remove hate from the social sphere. The easiest way of doing that is through censorship. It won't make it go away, but it will make it quite a bit less prevalent. Studies have shown that children who watch violent television become violent themselves. If we censor violent TV right now in order to prevent a violent state of mind in our future adults, why not do the same with race?

wtf? wtf? WTF?????????

you are advocating censorship of SPEECHES? I am not seeing this right?

This is so self-evidently wrong I actually don't have anything to say.

One SHOULDN"T make laws to prohibit speeches, PERIOD. Speeches of any kind. It doesn't matter if some (perceived) benefits might result from it, you just DON"T DO IT.

Freedom of speech is an inherent, inalieanble right of humans. And if you dont' believe in that why don't you start practicing what you preach and pull out your tongue you fucking sack of cunt

I took back every saying i liked you, you are one of the worst pieces of shits on totse like dernigger or Ron kikeboy who try to pass laws based on your personal likes and dislikes, well fuck YOU

you behave in such a typically mud-like fashion and you think like such a goddman mud, which is no wonder because you have MUD blood, MUD BOI

I am not going to read the whole thread cause quite frankly the idea is srsly retarded:


We don't need some universal respect bullshit.

We do not need to outlaw free speech.

We do not need to rid the world of hate.

You need to grow up and realise that not everyone is going to like you and not necessarily for any good reason. Some people might call you names, but wait don't go crying to mummy just grow some fucking balls and accept it.

If it does go further than naming you as a certain race combined with some derogatory term most civilised countries already have laws for this. If I want to call you a melon muching darkie slave does it really hurt your feelings that much?

I am not a racist but I support their right to say racist things just as I think your should be allowed to shout anything you like back.

fucking this

everybody listen the fuck up: just because you dont like to hear something (ie, being called a nigger, a chink, a kike or whatever) it doen'st give you the right to stop someone from saying it

People have the RIGHT to say whatever they want, and if it hurts your feelings that much why dont you get the fuck out and go back to the shitholes that are teeming with your racial brethren so you wont get called a name

like seriously, stop trying to make people behave a certain way ( in this case, stop using racial slurs or making racial discussions) just to make you feel more comfortable

Zay and I have thoroughly destroyed racism from every angle, on several occasions.

Is that right? well if that's true how come even right now I am calling you a nigger?

hmm? why's that, NIGGER?

One person who doesn't hate disproves you entirely.

No it doesn't.

If one person doesn't hate, do you know what it means? It means one person doesn't hate. It doesn't mean everybody else doesn't hate either.

You fucking mongrellised piece of shit, do you ever make sense?

Lol, that's just like saying that cats and tigers are social construct.

Having a lower brain mass to body mass ratio compared to other human type is real and concrete difference, not just a social construct.

Having a skin color and nose that looked like mountain gorillas among all your "brother" is not just a social construct, it's an undeniable evidence that you and your race haven't evolved far from a primate....

Oh, it's not just skin deep, 10 years ofter some psychos or kkk lynched you and all that remained of you are a sack of bones, people can still look at your skull and tell whether your a black, asian or caucasian, because this are real differences, not just a mere "social construct" as you prefer it to be...

hmm...must suck being you/your people cos you kno...being at the bottom of the evolution chain and such.....:)


niggy

lol lol

i like how it's all on the right side, cute

Fluid mechanics are a social construct, man.

so is that cherry-flavoured dildoe in your ass, cock munch

DerDrache you really need to overcome the internalized racism from which you suffer. Nowhere in this thread have I said that Operation Trident is needed because of race. You simply assume that because I'm talking about black people, I think it is because they are black that these problems exist.

That's what you seemed to be implying. If you don't want people to make assumptions, be precise when you make comments in a thread.


But that aside, this law would be laughably ineffective for so many other reasons.

Banning descriptive words does not make them go away especially when the racial differences that give rise to them are, quite literally, staring you in the face. Pretending it isn't there in the belief it will magically go away is utterly delusional. History books would have to be burnt and rewritten, black people fined for calling each other "brother" (don't even bother playing the game that this is not a racial term of endearment), the list goes on and on...

And what about the use of racial descriptions in situations which are unquestionably defined by race, for example, the drive to increase enthic blood donations? (http://www.ethnicnow.com/channels/health-lifestyle/press-release/12/1420/national-blood-service-launches-drive-for-more-black-and-asian-blood-donors.html) You cannot eradicate a word from the volcabulary and still use it in certain positive and necessary situations. There would have to be so many exceptions to the rule that the rule would be all but worthless.

To suggest otherwise is asinine.

I'm not proposing a law that would make it illegal to acknowledge human genetic differences. Rather, I believe that "race" is a fallacious concept that does nothing more than cause additional, unnecessary human conflict, and that everyone would get along a lot better if the concept didn't even exist, or at least was not given as much significance as it has today. That's what I'm striving for...whether or not a law is the best way to go about it is up for debate, of course. The specifics and logistics of the law(s) would also be another issue to discuss.

About blood donors and science in general: Classifications make things more efficient for scientists, so indeed, I think it would be crazy to stop scientists from classifying humans with similar genetic traits. However, given that there is more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them, the current scientific emphasis on our so-called "races" really needs to be placed somewhere else.

If scientists want to find a cure for sickle-cell anemia, they should study sickle-cell anemia patients. The fact that people with sickle-cell are so-called "black" people should have nothing to do studying and treating the disease. If a particular "black" gene is vital to the formation of the disease, then that gene should be the only focus, not "black people". See what I'm saying?

fucking this

everybody listen the fuck up: just because you dont like to hear something (ie, being called a nigger, a chink, a kike or whatever) it doen'st give you the right to stop someone from saying it

People have the RIGHT to say whatever they want, and if it hurts your feelings that much why dont you get the fuck out and go back to the shitholes that are teeming with your racial brethren so you wont get called a name

like seriously, stop trying to make people behave a certain way ( in this case, stop using racial slurs or making racial discussions) just to make you feel more comfortable

Thanks I thought it had somehow gone over every ones head despite it being pretty simple.

We have these free speech laws in our countries because as a people and a society we realised words are just words. You cannot imprison or fine people just for what they say it is a basic fucking freedom and all the cunts like you (der drache, not that I had anything against you up until this and not that I remember much of what you post) that want to take this away from us just because of your hurt feelings can go fuck off to some un-civilised piece of shit country where people can get killed for saying the wrong thing. Just make sure you pick the right one or your tongue might slip and im sure you would like to keep it.

ITT: WaN on a rampage.

That's what you seemed to be implying. If you don't want people to make assumptions, be precise when you make comments in a thread.

But you are the only person voicing that opinion, there's nothing "people" about it. Like I said, the fact that you think my responses are possibly racist trolling (which is quite funny; compared to most of the shit in this thread I think they're some of the most reasonable... either that or I'm a better troll than most), says more about you than it does about me.

Take for example your response in the thread "Why is Alcohol So Damn Awesome?" posts 39-42. (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2175235) You've assumed there that I'm asserting that you as a black man are a chimpanzee, and have responded as if I were making a specifically racial statement, even though it's ambiguous at best*. But you're not the only person I've referred to as chimp, DerDrache, and when I do it's not because your black. Fuck, just look at who Obama is replacing...

* What amused me about that was the seeming ease with which your sidekick assumed the same thing. So much for him being anti-racist, because he thinks just like one, lol.

I'm not proposing a law that would make it illegal to acknowledge human genetic differences. Rather, I believe that "race" is a fallacious concept that does nothing more than cause additional, unnecessary human conflict, and that everyone would get along a lot better if the concept didn't even exist, or at least was not given as much significance as it has today. That's what I'm striving for...whether or not a law is the best way to go about it is up for debate, of course. The specifics and logistics of the law(s) would also be another issue to discuss.

The problem I have is not with the principle of what you are trying achieve, but the feasibility of it. Where there is difference be it racial, religious, financial, etc... their will almost inevitabily be some type of conflict as two or more sets of people with insurmountable differences try to interact.

I don't think that can ever be eradicated with legislation. In fact I think that such suppression would only drive racism underground. In the UK the far right British National Party (http://bnp.org.uk/) are a fairly obnoxious bunch, but they serve as a useful barometer - where they get elected it's obvious there's a racial problem. If you suppressed this kind of party (as I think you'd have to) you'd lose that; racial tensions would still exist but they'd be harder to monitor.

The KKK are a similar proposition, you could ban them but that wouldn't get rid of them, it'd just make their activities harder to detect.

About blood donors and science in general: Classifications make things more efficient for scientists, so indeed, I think it would be crazy to stop scientists from classifying humans with similar genetic traits. However, given that there is more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them, the current scientific emphasis on our so-called "races" really needs to be placed somewhere else.

If scientists want to find a cure for sickle-cell anemia, they should study sickle-cell anemia patients. The fact that people with sickle-cell are so-called "black" people should have nothing to do studying and treating the disease. If a particular "black" gene is vital to the formation of the disease, then that gene should be the only focus, not "black people". See what I'm saying?

I see what you're saying but where has/does science focused on an racial group, primarily because of their race and not because of a variable under investigation?

That seems very... unscientific, to say the least.

And I don't think there's anything inherently flawed with stating that gene X is found more frequently within a particular racial group. For example if a health campaign targeting people with gene X is run, or a study that requires people with that gene, I think it makes perfect sense to state the fact that it's more prevalent in a certain group.

Next time don't make so many stupid points then. I can use the same points you just made to argue against racism.

ohhh....ryl ??? Lololololo!!!!! if you could you'd done it already.

Your bullshit covered so many topics that when I scrolled past your post it caught my eye.

Refute or submit. Inaction is submission on your part.

Violence is natural,

Yes. Now see how it contradicts with this statement of yours :

but for kids that aren't raised in a violent environment, kids that don't hunt or watch their parents hunt, kids that are raised by good parents, tv has some degree of influence on them.

So irregardless of whether they are tv or not, they will still be violence and violent behavior because it's within them to begin with...(like you said, it's natural..)

A tv is just a box with wires and lights (metaphorically speaking) in them, and to think it can control the way a young person how to act, it utter bullshit. The main reason parents blame tv is because they don't want to take responsible for their fucked up kids and you know it.

Ultimately it's up to the parents to explain it all to them.

But bad parenting is not something you can fix by censoring violent on tvs.

Why would you waste your time saying "lawl alexander the great and dinosaurs didn't watch power rangers so tv can't make you violent!"?

:confused: What part of it that didn't you understand ?

The effect has been noticed by lots of psychological research.

[a] However there's been no conclusive evidence whatsoever up until now that specifically says that violent tv shows turn children into a violent person.

[b] Bullshit without source[s]. And even if you do, there's just as many sources that will suggest the contrary....so back to point [a].

so in the end, I said this once and I say it again....

Spic shouldn't speak.

I see what you're saying but where has/does science focused on an racial group, primarily because of their race and not because of a variable under investigation?

That seems very... unscientific, to say the least.

And I don't think there's anything inherently flawed with stating that gene X is found more frequently within a particular racial group. For example if a health campaign targeting people with gene X is run, or a study that requires people with that gene, I think it makes perfect sense to state the fact that it's more prevalent in a certain group.

Which is why I told him if he can ignore the very real and obvious differences such as genetic makeup and anatomical structure, then by his logic, a tiger and a cat are just the same thing and that the term species and genus too, are just a social construct....

Btw don't push him so hard, you don't him committing suicide live on the internet.....do you ....cos you never kno,....you kno....

The original..

http://glob.anewyorkthing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/the-joint.jpg

O U T L A W E D
R A C E!

The original..

http://glob.anewyorkthing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/the-joint.jpg

O U T L A W E D
R A C E!

Sounds like a certain kike and darkie know their race is inferior and want to have those proclaiming it frowned upon :(

For shame, darkie, we have freedom of speech. If you don't like it, go back to Africa.

Sounds like a certain kike and darkie know their race is inferior and want to have those proclaiming it frowned upon :(

For shame, darkie, we have freedom of speech. If you don't like it, go back to Africa.

I see.. I'll just add you to the list...:D

I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal. I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different". In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?". As long as we keep making distinctions between "black", "white", "brown", etc in practically every context...I don't think we're ever going to get there.

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?

And I would really like to see people like you shot in the face.

No matter what - no form of speech should be illegal - at ALL.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't care if it's hate speech, love speech, conservative speech, liberal speech - it doesn't matter.

DerDrache - like Slave of the Beast said - I'm not saying that the principle of what you're trying to achieve is wrong - just the feasibility of it. (Like I said before, you're heart is in the right place, it just doesn't seem plausible to put it into action)

No matter what - no form of speech should be illegal - at ALL.

Fire in a crowded theatre?

Fire in a crowded theatre?

You know what I meant.

It's the context - and what I am implying by saying no form of speech should be illegal - is that what we have right now (in the USA) is working just fine.

If it isn't broken, why fix it?

EDIT : Balance, balance, Sir. I just feel that we already have enough restrictions on what you can say - why add more?

Even fire in a crowded theater should be legal, so as long as no one gets hurt. If people are going to be given horns for their motor vehicles to use at their discretion, whenever they please for no reason at all; as they do so on a regular basis in my shithole of a community people should be allowed to shout bomb on an airplane. Until horns are removed from all motor vehicles (they are worthless anyway, actions speak louder than sounds), the first amendment should not apply to their usage and their misuse (read: use) should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (disrupting the peace).

Fuck theaters, drive in's 4tw.

You know what I meant.

It's the context - and what I am implying by saying no form of speech should be illegal - is that what we have right now (in the USA) is working just fine.
That's your opinion. I, for one, was really pissed off when bong hits for jesus suddenly became illegal.

EDIT : Balance, balance, Sir. I just feel that we already have enough restrictions on what you can say - why add more?

Let's extrapolate that principle to every regulation known to man!

That's your opinion. I, for one, was really pissed off when bong hits for jesus suddenly became illegal.



Let's extrapolate that principle to every regulation known to man!

Of course it's just my opinion...isn't that what this thread is about? Our opinions/thoughts and ideas + discussion?

I am not wrong - and neither are you...we both have different point of views - THUS - this thread.

And, I also agree with you on that. Bong hits for Jesus should NOT have been made illegal. The last thing I want is more and more restrictions on speech similar to that.

And, "let's extrapolate that principle to ever regulation known to man" - seriously? How is that relevant? The same very thing could be said about your argument. But...I'm not going to say it because :

A) It's low brow
B) Contributes nothing to the discussion
C) Will turn this into a flame, which will deviate the entire point of this thread.

Just because it would seem ridiculous to use the same principle elsewhere, does not make it ridiculous to use it here. That logic is flawed.

I'm not trying to argue with you/be offensive and I'm most certainly not trying to shut this idea down, it just doesn't seem like something that once put into action, would work.

Of course it's just my opinion...isn't that what this thread is about? Our opinions/thoughts and ideas + discussion?

I am not wrong - and neither are you...we both have different point of views - THUS - this thread.
Again, there are certain logical constructs that are inviolable within logic and you have broken several of them. You have no logical reason to say that the US's interpretation of the 1st amendment is not broken.

And, I also agree with you on that. Bong hits for Jesus should NOT have been made illegal. The last thing I want is more and more restrictions on speech similar to that.
Then you'll agree that the system is broken.

And, "let's extrapolate that principle to ever regulation known to man" - seriously? How is that relevant? The same very thing could be said about your argument. But...I'm not going to say it because :

A) It's low brow
B) Contributes nothing to the discussion
C) Will turn this into a flame, which will deviate the entire point of this thread.

Just because it would seem ridiculous to use the same principle elsewhere, does not make it ridiculous to use it here. That logic is flawed.

I'm not trying to argue with you/be offensive and I'm most certainly not trying to shut this idea down, it just doesn't seem like something that once put into action, would work.

Using that argument on me will not work because there are positive things in society that should be propagated through the use of media and not every concept in society is a negative one, so censorship of absolutely everything would be illogical and prevent many positive ideas from being heard. If you want to make the claim that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies to the 1st amendment you'll have to show why this is true and why this can't apply to all other regulations. That or claim all speech should be free, bar none.

It's a social construct, numbnuts.

The only fact is that humans come in different shapes, sizes, and colors. We're all still the exact same species, thus "race" has absolutely no meaning beyond physical appearance (comparable to tit size, ass size, eye color, and all sorts of other inconsequential crap). There should be no reason to discuss "race". If you need to describe someone physically, then you should be able to do it without lumping them into some broad skin-color based category.

Kuch Kuch, Social Construct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Race in biology. Almost all species know races.

Please read 3rd paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

The text clearly indicates that we intentionally refrain from using the biological taxonomic racial categorisation and reffer to it as a social construct. This is more politcally and ethically correct. Nonetheless, Race exsists.

Kuch Kuch, Social Construct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Race in biology. Almost all species know races.

Please read 3rd paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

The text clearly indicates that we intentionally refrain from using the biological taxonomic racial categorisation and reffer to it as a social construct. This is more politcally and ethically correct. Nonetheless, Race exsists.

Yeah, and human usage of the term "race" is a social construct, like I already said.

Using that argument on me will not work because there are positive things in society that should be propagated through the use of media and not every concept in society is a negative one, so censorship of absolutely everything would be illogical and prevent many positive ideas from being heard. If you want to make the claim that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies to the 1st amendment you'll have to show why this is true and why this can't apply to all other regulations. That or claim all speech should be free, bar none.

Postive according to whom? I ask this because everybody's got different believes/opinions etc. If two people's got conflicting views, who do we listen to?

Postive according to whom? I ask this because everybody's got different believes/opinions etc. If two people's got conflicting views, who do we listen to?

Anything that enhances life or liberty. You could say that those are subjective, but then you'd be crazy.

Anything that enhances life or liberty. You could say that those are subjective, but then you'd be crazy.

Your arrogance knows no bounds. To say you know what enhances life and liberty or to dare say that these cannot be subjective! Liberty is not a given right, it is gained and held at the cost of sacrifice. Sometimes this means accepting a lesser kind of liberty over oppression. Always seeking to enhance liberty is traversing very thin ice, ice unstable enough for other to break easily. And what might I ask means enhancing life?

Your arrogance knows no bounds. To say you know what enhances life and liberty or to dare say that these cannot be subjective! Liberty is not a given right, it is gained and held at the cost of sacrifice. Sometimes this means accepting a lesser kind of liberty over oppression. Always seeking to enhance liberty is traversing very thin ice, ice unstable enough for other to break easily. And what might I ask means enhancing life?

I find it humorous that this guy is accusing other people of being arrogant.

Actually banning Race-Speech is all about greatening our liberties. Without the chains and enslavement of racism, we will be the freest people on the planet and also a model nation.

I get irritated when people constantly try to say "ooh but the constitution says this". No, no, NO! What they fail to understand is that the constitution was meant as a "living document", meaning that we have the freedom (or "liberty") to alter it, as necessary. So the constitution is not relevant to this discussion.

Well "Knight", I do agree that we should protect these liberties. When we take the right steps and outlaw Race-Speech, we must fight to protect this new-found liberty.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.
Thank you. :)
To say you know what enhances life and liberty or to dare say that these cannot be subjective!
It would have to depend on the situation. Can you give me a situation where it can be?
Liberty is not a given right, it is gained and held at the cost of sacrifice.
Liberty stems from the right to life. You accept both or neither. It is not "held at the cost of sacrifice", whatever the hell that means. It's guaranteed by virtue of being a human.
Sometimes this means accepting a lesser kind of liberty over oppression.
So? What's wrong with that? Don't you prefer small liberties to oppression?
Always seeking to enhance liberty is traversing very thin ice, ice unstable enough for other to break easily.
What the fuck does this mean?
And what might I ask means enhancing life?
Increasing lifespan and health while not "decreasing" the lives of others; in a utilitarian manner.

Actually banning Race-Speech is all about greatening our liberties.

Question mark?

I'm not the best at english (NOT sarcasm-ESL) - I think I might be reading this wrong - could you elaborate or explain differently?

(once again, I am NOT being sarcastic! English is my second language)

Question mark?

I'm not the best at english (NOT sarcasm-ESL) - I think I might be reading this wrong - could you elaborate or explain differently?

(once again, I am NOT being sarcastic! English is my second language)

Racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group, correct? Thus, the elimination of racism will enhance civil liberties.

Racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group, correct? Thus, the elimination of racism will enhance civil liberties.

Ah, thank you. (Like I said, I try to be coherent when I type, but sometimes I get confused when I read certain sentences.) Thanks!

Racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group, correct? Thus, the elimination of racism will enhance civil liberties.

Precisely. :D

Racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group, correct? Thus, the elimination of racism will enhance civil liberties.

The post he was referring to said:
Actually banning Race-Speech is all about greatening our liberties.
Banning race speech will not end racism and therefore will not "greaten our liberties"

Definition of liberty
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

There you go, "the power or right of speaking according to choice" so really banning race speech will take away liberties, not "greaten them"

I'm sure you think you are doing some good, but don't make claims that it will enhance our freedoms or liberties or whatever, because first you have to know the definitions of those words. Making it illegal for people to say certain things is a step towards creating a fascist, totalitarian government, and it will not make things any better.

Man is not born equal. I study government management and we see things very utilitarian. Per Example it is scientifically proven that marrocans are more aggresive then turks or europeans. This is deu to their culture where it is comon for cousins and nieces to be wedded out to eachother. This has affected their genepool in such a way that now, after many generations, there are clear genetic differences which cause alterated behavior from other populations.

I'm not saying they are inferior. I'm not saying they are superior. I'm not judging anything. I'm just stating information I need to correctly develop and apply policy to counter social problems stemmed from this fact. In short, sometimes even undesireable information is needed. Only a king of fools would turn his back on it and pretend it isn't there. Racism as used by the dumb masses is merely small talk of people who could not possibly compete with people like me in a thrive for political dominance, them and us think on totaly different levels. Just because one group uses the term and adherent information to cause mischief does not mean the information is worthless or dangerous. That's why its arrogant to percieve something as such (racism is used to cause harm) to be true for everyone. Whilst there are people, like policy makers, who need it to develop better policy, policy needed to ensure life and liberty per example. Of course this also means that if such information becomes undesirable (which it already is to certain extend) or even illegal, policy makers cannot produce adequate policy and therefor the state becomes weaker and life and liberty can become contested rights. Until all men (and women) are born exactly alike, there is a need for statistics and research of populations wherein all variables are mentioned, age, sex, ethnicy, etc.

Yes I went out of my way to explain all this because two seemingly intelligent people were unable to comprehend.

I tried to scan through the post and glean as much of the arguments being shared as I could. Because there was so much shit between valid points, let me just briefly review what I find to be important.

-------Quick Review----------
The idea proposed by DerDrache is: "To institute a policy that made discussions of race and racial differences illegal."

The arguments proposed for this policy are that:

1.) Most of the arguments proposed for the policy are based on this concept: categories of racial difference lead to negative consequences, both in the form of hate crime and discrimination (and of course, that hate crime and discrimination are bad).

2.) One way of overcoming categories of racial difference is to stop using language to describe race. The hope is eventually, that once we stop using race as a construct, then we will be "color-blind."

3.) While racial programs like NAACP and affirmative action policies have been useful in the past (no one said this, but it was sort of implied), discrimination based on race has ceased, and thus we do not need to assist the "races" that have been discriminated in the past. [I am probably over-stating someone's argument, but this seemed to be a common notion in a couple of posts].


Some of the pertinent arguments against this policy are:

4.) Institutionalizing a policy that infringes on free speech is bad because free speech is more important than the attempt to solve racial hate crimes and discrimination, etc.

5.) Preventing people from talking about race wouldn't work to solve hate crimes because people will hate anyways, regardless of whether they talk about or do not talk about race.

6.) Race is a biological category. Therefore, we shouldn't outlaw its discussion because somehow, science validates its use.

-----End Review-----

I would like to comment on as many of these arguments as I can feasibly do. I know this makes my post incredibly long, but I hope it will be informative. And besides... Free speech right? If you have comments on any of this, please mention, I would like to hear your opinions.


-----Comments on Race and Biology (6)-----

First, I want to deal with the issue of biology (6).

To whoever posted the argument about race being biological: okay, fine. Maybe I believe that there is some "biological marker" of race. But even so, having this marker doesn't help me much, particularly since most non-scientists will probably draw incorrect conclusions about what this difference means. For instance, suppose I have a biological method of distinguishing between anglo-americans and african-americans--maybe I found a particular gene that's different. What can I conclude from that? "Aha!" I say, "I have figured out that what makes african-americans African-American! Now I REALLY understand why African-Americans are not as smart as anglo-americans!" WRONG. That doesn't even make sense. Just because there is a gene that separates two categories that I have established in my mind does not mean that this gene is the CAUSE of differences between those two categories. To use a really stupid example, suppose I have a a half-eaten banana and an orange on the table. I discover that the two fruits are genetically different and conclude that because they are genetically different, I can thus explain and understand why one of the fruits is peeled and the other is not peeled. This is a FALSE CONCLUSION. All I can really conclude from my genetic marker is that certain people have the gene and some people don't, and until further results are generated as to the function of my genetic mechanism, I can't really say much more than that.

Thus, it seems to me that we could still ban the use and discussion of "race" without doing much disservice to science. Why associate the biological difference with race at all, seeing as the term is so loaded. Why not call my new genetic distinguisher "stars". Then, scientifically, I will call those individuals with stars "starred-sneetches" and those without "plain-sneetches." I can preserve all my scientific results, still have intellectual conversations about my topic, and don't need to worry about race at all.

This being said, I still think that the notion of banning discussions of race is a very misguided notion. But for very different reasons.


----Comments on Racial Difference as Bad (1)----

Now I would like to comment on the notion that racial distinctions are entirely bad (1).

A previous poster mentioned that there are racial distinction might not always be bad. This is indeed true. There a number of situations in which having "race" provides a positive identity and community for individuals. For instance, having a culture of shared ideals, shared music, shared aesthetic, etc. can be incredibly beneficial for connecting with individuals on a very powerful level. In my own experience, I have noticed that I am better able to connect with and relate more positively with people who share a common heritage with me.

One might say, "But what you have described is ethnicity. What we are really talking about here is RACE." I ask, "They're different?" Like has been mentioned in previous posts, race is a social construct, as is ethnicity. Both are based on the notion of a fundamental, essential difference between people. Both are somewhat arbitrary and it is only the fact that in the last 30 or so years, "race" has become a taboo word, with the consequence that we use "ethnicity" in its stead. But this is somewhat of a side-note, the important thing is that difference (in the form of race or ethnicity) can provide many positive opportunities for communion and relationships.

Here's an interesting example of racial constructs being positive:
In a study by M Shih, TL Pittinsky, and N Ambady ("Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance," Psychological Science, 1999), Asian-women were asked to perform on a math test. Right before the math test, some of the asian-women were asked what their gender was, other asian-women were asked to provide information about their ethnicity. Now, there exists the following two stereotypes in our culture: first, that women are bad at math, and second, that asians are good at math. So how did these students perform on their math test? The ones who were asked their gender did WORSE and the ones who were asked about their ethnicity did BETTER--better even than a group of controls who did not provide any information at all. What this suggests is that depending on what identity you associated with, you performed in accordance with the prevailing stereotype.

What does this mean? Well, first it demonstrates that having a positive identified stereotype led to better "intelligence testing." However, it also demonstrates that having a negative stereotype led to worse "intelligence." So my point is this: I think DerDache's proposal is mislead because it is attempting to ban talk of race, when it seems to me the problem is not the TALKING , per se, but it is the WHAT IS BEING SAID. For instance, imagine if instead of believing that African-Americans were stupid, thieving gangsters, and instead thought of them as achieving, intelligent, and contributing members of society. This would, I think, help the system of hate and discrimination perhaps more so than "banning discussions of race."


----Comments on being "color-blind" (2)----

In fact, I would make the argument, that in many ways, banning discussions of race would make the problem WORSE. Over the past 15 years or so, America has been trying to table honest discussions of race. I think much of the concern over "political correctness" and attempts to pretend that race doesn't exist has not led to a lot of progress. I know that in my primary through secondary american education, there was an attempt to tell me that "race" wasn't important, that we should all get along, etc. And I can tell you that on the whole, at least in my case, this strategy didn't work.

Why? Because our concept of race is not solely treated as a topic of discourse. Our understanding of "race" and "racial categories" are determined by societal forces and the dissemination of our communities definitions to us. And, try as we might, we cannot simply ignore or be blind to the societal treatment of race.

The obvious example of race being treated in a non-discursive fashion is the media and pop-culture. Consider, for instance, how hip hop has been treated as a very African-American art-form, and further, how it is associated with notions of gang violence, crime, and moral behavior that many people decry. Note that it is not just words, language, or the lyrical content of this art that lends itself to notions of the "African American race" (whatever that means), but also the images and public representation that have been proliferated and sold by the MTV, and other media sources.

And a final note on this topic: while, DerDrache, you might try to be "blind" to all this representation, the simple fact of the matter is that you can't be. A number of studies have shown that in many cases, our stereotypes are activated automatically, such that despite our attempts to be blind, the biases of our society show anyways (for a review of this topic, try picking up a copy of "The Handbook of Social Cognition," by JA Bargh). It has even been shown that when we are trying to be blind, we may often make matters worse (forget the reference, I can look it up if you want).


----Comments on the notion that discrimination is finished... (3)----

First, to all those who don't care about being "equal" in some sense of the word, but enjoy advantage and think you deserve your advantage, for whatever reason, you probably don't care about this next section. I recognize your opinion but feel that for those who do care, the following is an important point.

When dealing with issues of race and justice, I think you'll find that matters get complicated very quickly. The statistics often used to suggest that we've made progress are true, but I don't think they get the whole story across. Consider, for instance, an argument made by Thomas M. Shapiro. He argues that while in general, the average income of African-Americans has increased, that African-Americans are still incredibly disadvantaged. They are disadvantaged because they do not have a lot of inherited wealth. Inherited wealth plays a hugely important role in allowing Americans opportunities, whether to buy homes, to send their kids to school, to help them out of financial crisis, etc. Because African-Americans were disadvantaged in the past by discrimination and slavery, many African-American families do not have the resources to provide them equal opportunity. In fact, the disparity in wealth between the average white family vs. the average black family has grown EVEN LARGER (controlling for all sorts of variables, including class; see "the Hidden Cost of Being African American," by Thomas Shapiro). Depending on how you define "equity," civil rights may be far from over.

Indeed, one of the points noted in Shapiro's books is how the loaning industry often discriminates against African-Americans by requiring higher interest rates, not on the basis of income (because white families of similar income level are given lower-interest rate loans for buying houses, for instance), but on the basis of skin color. This is rationalized on a fuzzy notion of "risk" that makes sense to economists in theory but is pretty morally reprehensible in practice.


-----------In Conclusion------------

The struggle of "race" is not finished (i.e., we are not really "equal" in my book, and in many other people's as well). And even if it were finished, I think the notion of trying to "eliminate race" by ending the use of race is a failed project of the 90's. I appreciate the spirit of your proposal, DerDrache, that we must, if we are try and eliminate racial injustice, do so on a societal level. But I do not think that preventing the use and knowledge of race as a construct would help this cause very much. Partly, like Midge has pointed out, the government does not really have much control over how people THINK. If one would like to change societal notions of race, I think one is going to have to change this notion through the people, not through authority, through American culture practice, not American government law. And I firmly believe that the best way to continue to understand our differences (because you cannot deny that there is difference) is to discuss them, and in particular, to discuss how it is that our societies concept of race is affecting our judgments.

Hope y'all are well.

Comment plz.

Very good conclusion indeed. Might I add that Germany has a 60 year old tradition of proscecuting thought-crimes so its kind of expected to hear a german's point of view on this matter as something like thought-crime related. Of course punishing thought-crimes is in itself an unconstitutional development since you invade people's privacy of thought and goes into the direction of mass controll.

I would really, really love to see a nation (preferably a diverse, progressive one...Canada or France comes to mind) institute a policy that made discussion of race and racial differences illegal. I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different". In an ideal world, I think humans would say "That guy has light skin and his family is from Europe. So what?", or "That guy has dark skin and his family from Africa. So what?". As long as we keep making distinctions between "black", "white", "brown", etc in practically every context...I don't think we're ever going to get there.

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?

This idea smells of fail. People discriminate against a fuck ton more things than just race. Obesity, being rich or poor, mentally retarded, red-headed, it doesn't matter. You cannot force people to get rid of prejudices and you cannot outlaw peoples attitudes. While progress is made i.e. the civil rights movement in America, forcing a country to adopt policy to outlaw racial terms wouldn't solve the problem. Not outlawing obesity, that's an idea. ;)

I would like to comment on as many of these arguments as I can feasibly do. I know this makes my post incredibly long, but I hope it will be informative. And besides... Free speech right? If you have comments on any of this, please mention, I would like to hear your opinions.


-----Comments on Race and Biology (6)-----

First, I want to deal with the issue of biology (6).

To whoever posted the argument about race being biological: okay, fine. Maybe I believe that there is some "biological marker" of race.

They are, and they're very real :

[a]
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/BC16-md.jpghttp://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bc-153-md.jpghttp://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/BC154-md.jpg

[b] explain why most of us here had never heard of "black serial killer" ??

[c] explain why asians dominate "hi-speed" sports like table-tennis, badminton and martial arts, while blacks only dominate simple to do sports like running, jogging and more running in the olympics....

why ?

They are, and they're very real :

[a]
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/BC16-md.jpghttp://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bc-153-md.jpghttp://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/BC154-md.jpg

[b] explain why most of us here had never heard of "black serial killer" ??

[c] explain why asians dominate "hi-speed" sports like table-tennis, badminton and martial arts, while blacks only dominate simple to do sports like running, jogging and more running in the olympics....

why ?

a) There is slight variation in human bone structure. It doesn't mean anything other than humans look slightly different from one another. Two white people's skulls will look different from one another, just as a white person and black person's skull will look different from one another.
b) Culture, moron.
c) Don't inject your racist bullshit (ie. "blacks are good at simple sports") into your questions and expect to be taken seriously. Asians tend to "dominate" ping-pong because it's more popular in their culture. Black Americans tend to dominate basketball because it's very popular in their culture. South Americans tend to dominate soccer because it's very popular in their culture. I'm always amazed at how white racist morons seem to think that everything is determined by genes, as though people don't get good at things through their own personal work ethic and upbringing. The fact of the matter is that few behavioral phenotypes are determined by genes. Things can be influenced, but environment plays a huge role in almost every aspect of our being. You would know this if you had an education.

Moron.

This idea smells of fail. People discriminate against a fuck ton more things than just race. Obesity, being rich or poor, mentally retarded, red-headed, it doesn't matter. You cannot force people to get rid of prejudices and you cannot outlaw peoples attitudes. While progress is made i.e. the civil rights movement in America, forcing a country to adopt policy to outlaw racial terms wouldn't solve the problem. Not outlawing obesity, that's an idea. ;)

You clearly have never heard of cognitive dissonance.

There are many instances of attitudes being changed by forcing behavior, some of which directly involve race. When American schools were de-segregated, some towns had angry whites directing violence and aggression toward the new black students. Other towns did not. It was found that in the towns without violence, the local law enforcement made it clear that "the law was the law", and that there wouldn't be any tolerance for violence against the new students. People accepted the fact that schools would no longer be segregated, and attitudes slowly changed over time as well. In towns were there was violence, people were essentially under the impression that they could fight against de-segregation.

a) There is slight variation in human bone structure. It doesn't mean anything other than humans look slightly different from one another. Two white people's skulls will look different from one another, just as a white person and black person's skull will look different from one another.

MY DEAR LORD, your moronation, FFS those differences you see are not "slight variation" look at them carefully and go to the said website to check out those differences first....before you nigger yapp-yapp to me...

and FFS, they look different because of their genetic makeup, ie; cos their genes are different duuuuhhhh.... it's our gene that determines how our body are built you dumb piece of BLACK NIGGER shit..

b) Culture, moron.

:eek::eek: ! You mean white-serial-killers lives in a white-only community devoid of tv, kfc and all sort of other things that made up the american culture ?

c) Don't inject your racist bullshit (ie. "blacks are good at simple sports") into your questions and expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, so an actual observation based on race is racist eh ?

Asians tend to "dominate" ping-pong because it's more popular in their culture.

Do you think it would be popular in the first place if it wasn't for the fact they are good at it ? Have you think of that ?? asshole ?? I say it's popular in their culture cos they can dominate it, and not the other way round...

asshole

Black Americans tend to dominate basketball because it's very popular in their culture. South Americans tend to dominate soccer because it's very popular in their culture.

Again, wrong. It's popular in their culture because they are can be good at it.

I mean, if people are good at certain sports cos it's popular in their culture, then by that logic, running and jogging *must* be very popular in african culture and that's why they are good at running and running and running .....dumm dumm dumm...ba da dummm..

Bwhahahahah
asshole logic

I'm always amazed at how white racist morons seem to think that everything is determined by genes, as though people don't get good at things through their own personal work ethic and upbringing. The fact of the matter is that few behavioral phenotypes are determined by genes. Things can be influenced, but environment plays a huge role in almost every aspect of our being. You would know this if you had an education.

Moron.

Ohhhhh hohoho.....when a non-black talks differences steming from the very real and obvious thing such as race, they're "RACIST", but when a black man talks about them....i guess it's OK.

PROVE :

He contends the device used by state police and most local police departments, the Intoxilyzer 5000, discriminates against blacks.

Ruane says research shows that the lung capacity of a black man is 3 percent smaller than a white man and, therefore, black men's test results vary from the sobriety standard set by the device.

Source :

http://www.fox61.com/pages/landing/?-Lawyer-says-alcohol-testing-device-is-r=1&blockID=139625&feedID=341

you filthy nigger !

I never said that genes didn't determine bone structure. My point was that it's as signifcant as eye or hair color, and you'll find skull differences between every single person in the world.

As for sports: You're just plain wrong. Black people that grow up playing lots of soccer (ie. Africans, European immigrants) tend to be good at soccer. White people that grow up playing lots of basketball end up being good at basketball. Black people that grow up playing lots of ping-pong are good at ping-poing, and so on, and so forth. People whose heads are filled with stupid nonsense since birth tend to be stupid, you being a case in point.

You can keep arguing if you want, but it's like arguing that the sky is red. You're flat-out wrong. It's interesting though: Do morons such as yourself refuse to study science and attempt to learn things simply because you think genes determine everything?

As for the running thing: There are so many retarded aspects to that statement that I don't know where to begin. I assume your implication was that blacks are good at simple sports like running, and whites are better at complex sports. Aside from the fact that blacks play and excel in all sports (just as people of any other race play and excel at all sports in large numbers), running skill is based on muscles and coordination, not competetence. So, assuming blacks are truly predispositioned toward stronger muscles and better coordination, then we have superior speed in addition to being good at "complex sports" that require actual competence.

As I said, pretty much everything you say is ridiculously stupid, but I just had to point out SOME of the idiocy.

You clearly have never heard of cognitive dissonance.

There are many instances of attitudes being changed by forcing behavior, some of which directly involve race. When American schools were de-segregated, some towns had angry whites directing violence and aggression toward the new black students. Other towns did not. It was found that in the towns without violence, the local law enforcement made it clear that "the law was the law", and that there wouldn't be any tolerance for violence against the new students. People accepted the fact that schools would no longer be segregated, and attitudes slowly changed over time as well. In towns were there was violence, people were essentially under the impression that they could fight against de-segregation.

And in the towns where the local law enforcement didn't enforce those laws? The towns with the violence? It was still the law but why didn't the LE do anything about it? Because the passing of the law didn't do shit to change the beliefs. And cognitive dissonance is a nice theory. Some are changed, some aren't.

And in the towns where the local law enforcement didn't enforce those laws? The towns with the violence? It was still the law but why didn't the LE do anything about it? Because the passing of the law didn't do shit to change the beliefs. And cognitive dissonance is a nice theory. Some are changed, some aren't.

The towns with the violence and resistance were ones in which the law wasn't being seriously enforced. (ie. "Okay folks, we have to let blacks into schools, but I'm going to turn a blind eye if you want to try to fight it" in contrast to "Okay folks, blacks are going to be in our schools now, and if you resist it you're going to get locked up. That's the way it is, so we have to just go with it"). If you don't enforce a law, then obviously it's not going to force a behavior.

My point is: Forcing behavior can and has changed attitudes. Whether or not forcing people not to speak of "race" would change their attitudes...I don't know, but evidence suggests that it's certainly possible.

The towns with the violence and resistance were ones in which the law wasn't being seriously enforced. (ie. "Okay folks, we have to let blacks into schools, but I'm going to turn a blind eye if you want to try to fight it" in contrast to "Okay folks, blacks are going to be in our schools now, and if you resist it you're going to get locked up. That's the way it is, so we have to just go with it"). If you don't enforce a law, then obviously it's not going to force a behavior.

My point is: Forcing behavior can and has changed attitudes. Whether or not forcing people not to speak of "race" would change their attitudes...I don't know, but evidence suggests that it's certainly possible.

I understand your point and it is a valid one.

All I'm saying is would about the LE who weren't enforcing the laws? Who's going to force them? Just making something the law won't take away years of being raised with prejudice out of people's systems. And there are plenty of other things people discriminate on besides racism, so if you took away racial discrimination people would just move on i.e.

"Hey! Look at how fucking fat that Mexican chick is."

"Whoa man. Watch your mouth."

"You're right. Look at how fucking fat that chick is...."

I never said that genes didn't determine bone structure. My point was that it's as signifcant as eye or hair color, and you'll find skull differences between every single person in the world.

lol,...what a stuuuuupid statement is that. Look here :

http://www.redwoods.edu/Instruct/AGarwin/anth_6_ancestry.htm

The variation of skull size among all *GENETICALLY PURE* Han-Chinese are what you can call "slight differences, but the *VERY OBVIOUS* existence of this little extra piece of wormian bones and....and nasal overgrowth, which is missing in all other races, is a very significant one and are very real, and if that distinction exists on animals, we would be able to rightfully categorized them as another SUB-SPECIES without the fear of repercussions.

But sadly, if we categorized/divide ourselves based on these obvious and undeniable differences and called each other "races" (which is something more dignified and benign when compared to the term sub-species) we suddenly became a "RACIST".

Now imagine if a cat or a gorilla can talk and bitch for their civil rights,.....I'm sure that ALL ZOOLOGISTS AND MARINE BIOLOGISTS would be tarred with the term "SPECIESTS" or "GENUSISTS" and be crucifixed onto the cross be left dying on the altar of civil liberties...or whatever...that pleases those cats and gorillas....

Now imagine that.....

As for sports: You're just plain wrong. Black people that grow up playing lots of soccer (ie. Africans, European immigrants) tend to be good at soccer. White people that grow up playing lots of basketball end up being good at basketball. Black people that grow up playing lots of ping-pong are good at ping-poing, and so on, and so forth.

Soccer eh ?? basket ball eh ?? hrmmmm :

Basic requirement for both sports :

Stamina, long-strong legs, and that's it. and btw, "tend to be good at" =/= "dominate"...

And explain how/why although soccer/football was invented by the the Chinese(asian), they *never* excel at it ? Never as in not even once in history ... not in their native country and not even in europe where it's crazily popular. EXPLAIN !!!

Other than they (mongoloids) didn't posses the qualities that a negroid (hi-stamina, long-legs) and caucasoid (average stamina, average, long legs) have, I don't know what other explanation could it be....

People whose heads are filled with stupid nonsense since birth tend to be stupid, you being a case in point.

Funny thing is that this statement can be applied to you aswell...

You can keep arguing if you want, but it's like arguing that the sky is red.

Whoa, true enough !! Arguing with a COLOR-BLINDED dumbass such as yourself that the sky isn't red is really futile, but my goal here is not to educate you.

I'm here to refute all your baseless points to EH-JUH-CATE the others, others who are not dumb and are not hypocritical and others who can comprehend facts in a logical and sensible manners....i'm here to help *THEM*, not you.

You're flat-out wrong. It's interesting though: Do morons such as yourself refuse to study science and attempt to learn things simply because you think genes determine everything?

Excuse meeeee, but it is theee "scientific studies" that says genetic makeup iessss da thang determines how we act,

As for the running thing: There are so many retarded aspects to that statement that I don't know where to begin.

Well, if your smarter, you would know how and where to begin,....and in a systematic fashion I might add....

I assume your implication was that blacks are good at simple sports like running, and whites are better at complex sports.

Duuuuhhh.....

Aside from the fact that blacks play and excel in all sports (just as people of any other race play and excel at all sports in large numbers)

You didn't watch the olympics, did ya ??? Blacks didn't excel in *all* sports, just those that are very simple and didn't take much muscle-brain coordination, such as running and jogging.


running skill is based on muscles and coordination, not competetence. So, assuming blacks are truly predispositioned toward stronger muscles and better coordination, then we have superior speed in addition to being good at "complex sports" that require actual competence.

Wrong, it only took a person 5 years to be "competent" at running.(ie; a 5year old) And it doesn't take much of a "coordination" to do aswell. All you need to excel in running is long legs, hi-stamina, and that it.

Ping-pong, on the other hand, took more than just that. It relied heavily on your reflexes, neuro-moto coordination, depth perception,...hi-speed thinking...etc etc, all of which are qualities that negroid / african person will find hard to "posses"....or master...

Don't believe me, show me a good black ping pong / badminton player, or a black chess-master....

Oh, wait, I just remember, for 2000years in modern human history, africans had *failed* to come up with *any* sorts of board games, writings, star-charts, literatures, complex-sound making instruments, table wares, writing instruments, hey, you can't even "invent" a simple object to sit on (chair) etc etc....

bwhahahah!!!11!!

As I said, pretty much everything you say is ridiculously stupid, but I just had to point out SOME of the idiocy.

Yes...yes...good...gooood.

Do you really have the time to write all that just in an effort to troll, or are you legitimately mentally handicapped? Lose-lose situation for you...

Instead of starting to insult accept your defeat with honor. As of yet, mentally social seperation of race is required to better apply public policy. This does not mean races are categorized as being superior or inferior. Merely a factbook of information needed to enhance life and liberty.

Seems like DerDrache is beaten.

Seems like DerDrache is beaten.

Not quite, haven't heard even one valid argument from the bigoted side.

The fact is that race is a social construct. It is a concept we have created that destroys us. It divides and conquers us.

Africa produced some of the most advanced astrology of the pre-colonial era. Saying that Africans lived in a primitive culture is plain ignorant. Africans created the pyramids, (don't say it was Arabs because that has been proven false). I found it humorous reading that bigot saying Africans didn't have chairs, I'm so amazed by the stupidity I see on here sometimes that my jaw literally drops. That moron Nazi, Knight of Darkness, is pretty humorous as well, his trying to promote racial laws. :p


Well I guess the positive part of all this ignorance and stupidity is that it does make you feel more intelligent. I digress...

Not quite, haven't heard even one valid argument from the bigoted side.

The fact is that race is a social construct. It is a concept we have created that destroys us. It divides and conquers us.

Africa produced some of the most advanced astrology of the pre-colonial era. Saying that Africans lived in a primitive culture is plain ignorant. Africans created the pyramids, (don't say it was Arabs because that has been proven false). I found it humorous reading that bigot saying Africans didn't have chairs, I'm so amazed by the stupidity I see on here sometimes that my jaw literally drops. That moron Nazi, Knight of Darkness, is pretty humorous as well, his trying to promote racial laws. :p


Well I guess the positive part of all this ignorance and stupidity is that it does make you feel more intelligent. I digress...

Race is something that is there. You can analyze people's genes and say that a white guy is closer genetically to some Bushman but that doesn't mean shit to anyone. People can see Asians look like Asians in the majority of situations and Mexicans, Mexicans. Many arguments have brought up that there is no such thing as race scientifically. So what?

And what the fuck are you even saying about Africa? Even if what you said is true about astrology and pyramids, what does that change? Why is Africa still an AIDs infested shithole war-zone? Because not enough countries like oh say America are dumping billions into the country to try and bring some sort of stability? Why is Africa such a place of need if it is so advanced? And if there were so advanced in the past then why aren't they now? Africans, Asians, Mexicans, Indians etc. all brought there own inventions and innovations. Yet, still most of their countries are shitholes and/or they weren't strong enough to keep their land from being taken over Manifest Destiny style. I'm not a racist or a bigot but these are facts. Fail.

Methematician,

I understand your two points: first, that there are real "genetic" differences between people, which we could categorize by; and second, that these genetic differences do predispose individuals to certain activities. The point of disagreement between you and DerDrache seems to be the question of nature vs. nurture. That is, to what extent does our predisposed nature (by genes) cause certain behaviors versus our environment growing up (nurture).

You hopefully agree (like most scientists) that it is BOTH. Genes need to be activated by the environment to affect behavior (consider an individual with an allergy to bee stings; as long as they're never stung by a bee, no symptoms will ever occur).

Applying this notion to the basketball/soccer example. Supposing the Asians invented these [did they really?], what "nurture" or sociological explanation could we give, in addition to, or as an alternative, to the genetic "nature" explanation? How about this: China is OVERLY POPULATED, and if you've ever been to a basketball court there, you'll see that it is always full. In general, kids don't get to spend a lot of time on the court shooting baskets (leading to poor shooting skills). They also definitely don't have the space or the resources for large fields required for soccer and other sports. So maybe, they just play the game differently (to adapt to smaller fields and limited resources) and are thus environmentally disadvantaged. Just as a side note, you cite these two sports as examples of certain genetic dispositions to superiority at certain sports: lets look at the 2008 Olympics? Can we explain the results of the Chinese Olympics solely on the basis of genetic factors? Why, if Africans are predisposed to succeeding to Chinese athletes better?

Another point I want to make is that if you believe in Darwinian evolution, you must create some sort of explanation of how the environment comes to influence the genes such that a creature continues to adapt. A virus, overtime, changes its genetic makeup to adapt to the circumstances of its current environment. Thus you may say, "Blacks genes are such that they are x, y, and z." And I may say, yes, but I will also ask, "What factors have led to their genes being x, y, and z?" So just because they are this way now, does not mean they will be in the future. As an example, think of how the average height of Asians have changed in the last few decades.


But sadly, if we categorized/divide ourselves based on these obvious and undeniable differences and called each other "races" (which is something more dignified and benign when compared to the term sub-species) we suddenly became a "RACIST".

Now imagine if a cat or a gorilla can talk and bitch for their civil rights,.....I'm sure that ALL ZOOLOGISTS AND MARINE BIOLOGISTS would be tarred with the term "SPECIESTS" or "GENUSISTS" and be crucifixed onto the cross be left dying on the altar of civil liberties...or whatever...that pleases those cats and gorillas....

I want to point out that this is sort of the point I made in my previous discussion. First, if we do categorize on the basis of these "obvious and undeniable differences," why do we use the term "race"? Race currently has a lot of connotations that I don't think a proper scientist would want to carry into his human taxonomy system. For instance, if one was interested in differentiating people based on their skin-tone, one could certainly do so on genetic grounds (taking into account the fact that people can tan their skin, and so in some ways "mess" with this genetic marker). But why call that "race"? Why not categorize people by "toneness"?

Okay, you are going to say to me, "You were being unfair. It is obviously not just SKIN TONE ALONE that defines race, it is a series of many different factors." Can you define for me what exactly, and I mean precisely (give me any set you want), are the markers with which we should define race? You are no doubt going to give a list of behaviors and traits that characterize "blacks," "whites", "hispanics," "asians," etc. But there is a fundamental problem with this process, namely you are using your socially-defined notion of what "race" is to define your genetically-defined notion of what "race" is. Because visuals help me, here is a brief schematic of what I mean:

Different "races" are defined by genentic differences. The genetic differences that differentiate races are x, y, and z. Why x, y, and z? Because x, y, and z differentiate the "races."

By way of example, consider the following: black people are more genetically predisposed to be athletic than white people. "Look," I say, "This validates the notion of 'racial difference.' Blacks are really different from whites, in athleticism, at a genetic level." But of course, what did I mean when I said "blacks" or "whites" in this sentence? I either meant: a.) That "blacks" are people who are more athletic than others, and those who are not athletic are "whites"--a statement which is very circular; or I meant that "blacks" are a certain kind of people whose "skin is black, who are of African descent, etc., etc." in which case I am presupposing that there is such a valid category of "blacks" and "whites".

It is the presupposition of a category of "race" that makes it a social construct, difficult to pin down by "scientific" means. The science can justify certain differences between individuals, but it cannot justify why we can connect these collective differences into the categories we do. Why, for instance, we can collectively call people with genetic predispositions to be "dark-skinned, athletic, stupid, [insert your favorite stereotype here]" people "black" when we could easily have chosen "dark-skinned, intelligent, nice, small," as our category to be called, "black."

I'd like to hear your thoughts Methematician. Like yourself, I am interested in educating and being educated.

Be well.

Seems like DerDrache is beaten.

Indeed. I really don't have the time to argue with someone who is either trolling or mentally incapable of understanding straight-forward logic and scientific reasoning. A racist only argues to defend their delusional beliefs at any cost. When their "logic" is defeated, they just ignore it and go right back to their belief. It's a waste of time, especially with someone like Methamatician.

knight of blackness: As I mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread, the genetic differences within racial groups are more significant than the genetic differences between racial groups. Whenever you talk about genetic vulnerabilities, you are saying "Humans with this genetic trait are more susceptible to [this]." Drawing an extra line in there for race simply makes things less generalized, less universal, and less useful. Black people aren't more susceptible to sickle-cell because they are "black". They are more susceptible because they have a given genetic trait. Identifying the trait is much more scientifically purposeful than thinking of it as just a race-related disease.

Earthbound, shut the fuck up.

Take sedatives, read this book, and come back in the morning to see if you're still talking bullshit about non-white cultures and civilizations:

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552

And DerDrache, you're completely right, but I don't see why you continue to exert strength in arguing with bigots like Methmatician. You present evidence, he refutes it, you reinforce your stance with more evidence, he refutes it some more.

What is the point, honest? The world is an unjust place, and all we can do is change it slowly through example. Arguing with close-minded bigots like these will amount to nothing.

If anything, we can both take solace in knowing that we are trying to better the world.

Earthbound, shut the fuck up.

Take sedatives, read this book, and come back in the morning to see if you're still talking bullshit about non-white cultures and civilizations:

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552

And DerDrache, you're completely right, but I don't see why you continue to exert strength in arguing with bigots like Methmatician. You present evidence, he refutes it, you reinforce your stance with more evidence, he refutes it some more.

What is the point, honest? The world is an unjust place, and all we can do is change it slowly through example. Arguing with close-minded bigots like these will amount to nothing.

If anything, we can both take solace in knowing that we are trying to better the world.

I read both Collapse and Guns already. I can't seem to find any sedatives as of this moment.

And by you saying that all you guys can do to change the world is slowly and by example you just proved my point, that Der Drache's idea wouldn't work. Have a nice day! :)

I read both Collapse and Guns already. I can't seem to find any sedatives as of this moment.

And by you saying that all you guys can do to change the world is slowly and by example you just proved my point, that Der Drache's idea wouldn't work. Have a nice day! :)

LOLWUT?

Not to sound like a fool, but this thread is waaaay to long for me to read closely, but yes, I get the gist.

DerDrache is wrong about outlawing race, because that is stripping us of our rights, and even the most foul-mouthed Nazi has the right to speak; I wouldn't want my rights taken away.

That approach will not work, and if anything will stir those most jaded. To change bigots like Methmatician's mind, you have to set an example. He flings shit at you, you just duck calmly, smile politely, nod your hat, and keep continue on your way.

Violent or sudden changes to people's norms do not sit well with bigots, so it is up to us to hold our heads up high. People come around, eventually. See: Mohandas Gandhi

I don't know where my grandfather got this off of, but, as he always told me, "Life's an endless pool of shit, and one has to wade through it with mouths a-ready"

Please keep your mouth sealed tightly, wade in an orderly fashion, and eventually you'll get enough people to clean the mess.

Indeed. I really don't have the time to argue with someone who is either trolling or mentally incapable of understanding straight-forward logic and scientific reasoning. A racist only argues to defend their delusional beliefs at any cost. When their "logic" is defeated, they just ignore it and go right back to their belief. It's a waste of time, especially with someone like Methamatician.


So, you were proven wrong on every point you made so you resorted to just attacking his character. Sounds like he won

So, you were proven wrong on every point you made so you resorted to just attacking his character. Sounds like he won

He hasn't proved me (or anyone, for that matter) wrong on any front. He makes insane generalizations, looks at complex issues from one angle, says things that are false, and my favorite: He seems to think that the difference between human ethnic groups is comparable to the difference between cats and tigers, or cats and gorillas. I don't have the time or energy to deal with a troll, or someone who is going to keep spewing nonsense no matter what he is told.

Dalaran had the patience to write out a long, detailed, clear post for Methematician, and I guarantee you that Meth's response will involve ignoring information, misinterpreting information, and ultimately it will lead right back to his poor initial hypothesis. Methematician does not have any understanding of science, genetics, anthropology, psychology, or sociology, and thus an argument with him truly leads nowhere.

The same goes for you, too, for that matter.

EDIT: Speaking of hypotheses: The problem with the layman is that they form (weak) hypotheses, develop hypothesis myopia, and ultimately become convinced that their hypothesis is in fact a solid, tested theory. I could provide millions of pages of information that contradicts your hypothesis, and you would ignore them. In other words, you aren't really trying to find an answer...you decided on an answer a long time ago and simply want that answer to be correct.

Not quite, haven't heard even one valid argument from the bigoted side.

Of course you did. When even *THIS (http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm)* fails to convince you....

The fact is that race is a social construct. It is a concept we have created that destroys us. It divides and conquers us.

No, on the contrary .... SOCIETY ARE A RACIAL CONSTRUCT. Chinatown (in the US) is not a social construct, the Chinese are. Ghettos and huuuds (in the US) aren't a social construct....blacks .....are......

Africa produced some of the most advanced astrology of the pre-colonial era.

Credible source to support your claim or shut the fuck up.

Saying that Africans lived in a primitive culture is plain ignorant.

:eek: So a culture which is devoid of any written language, numbers, architecture achievements, .... a culture that have *yet* to develop the capability take, store and retrieve historical records .... a culture that have *yet* to develop an indigenous way to mine, extract and smelt earthly metals and made sharp edged weapon out of it.......

......is an ADVANCED CULTURE. Well, if you're "relatively speaking" with apes and gorilla in mind.... sure, Africans are "ADVANCED CULTURE" indeed,...and a very "advanced" one I must add.....

Which in turn....and by comparison, must mean that other non-black cultures must be extraterrestrial in nature ..... and in origin....:eek:

{{{insert : X-FILES O.S.D here}}}

Africans created the pyramids, (don't say it was Arabs because that has been proven false).

[a] :eek::eek: Credible source to support that, or GTFO.

If just because african slaves are used in the construction of pyramid = PYRAMID IS AFRICAN CREATION,.....then by that logic...

Cotton industries too,....is an african creation/invention...

I found it humorous reading that bigot saying Africans didn't have chairs, I'm so amazed by the stupidity I see on here sometimes that my jaw literally drops.

Well then, please, show everyone here just how stupid I am by posting a pict of traditional/ancient African furniture set....of just a chair would suffice.....

That moron Nazi, Knight of Darkness, is pretty humorous as well, his trying to promote [B]racial laws. :p

Whoa....your so ignorant and hypocritical. If.....like you'd said and believed soooo firmly:

if-"RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT" then...racial law = SOCIAL LAW....a law based on social construct.....

But wait, all our current "laws" in use are based on social construct aswell .... so....what's the big deal with racial law ??

Well I guess the positive part of all this ignorance and stupidity is that it does make you feel more intelligent. I digress...

Well....good for you...

^Any argument trying to claim that there are innate intelligence differences between the races is pure crap, mainly because there are no scientific studies that actually confirm it, yet there are many, many studies that prove that environment determines an individual's cognitive abilities much more than genetics.

Until a study shows that test-tube babies raised in 100% identical environments have different levels of cognitive abilities based on their genetic racial differences, racist arguments have no scientific support. (I say "test-tube babies" to highlight the fact that environmental factors such as the mother's psychological state or health can affect a child even during prenatal environment.)

In addition to being unsupported scientifically, it's a completely worthless hypothesis in the real world. Why? If we pretend that IQ measures intelligence (and if we controlled for the cultural bias), and we found that the average black IQ is 90, and the average white IQ is 100, that doesn't change the fact that there are millions of blacks who are well above both of those averages. Any argument that uses intelligence as a basis for "superiority" is of no use to the average person. You're simply arguing for an elite society, from which you would be excluded, and which would still be comprised of people of all races (in uneven proportions, if you were correct, but a multi-racial society nonetheless).

I mean, when is racial categorization ever useful? When it isn't directly fueling racism and stupidity, it really isn't doing anything except maintaining the notion that we're "different".

It's useful in identification, but that's a non-issue in relation to a larger point - people will ALWAYS maintain the notion that we're different, whether it be obesity, wealth, religion or any number of other facts. Should we outlaw all of those, too? Is that what the government needs to be, a giant-sized baby-sitter?

This law would make it illegal for any news or media source to distinguish or identify racial differences in any way, and people heard using racial terminology ("black", "white", "hispanic", etc.) could be fined or arrested as though they were using a racist slur. The only time it would be legal to describe someone's "racial" features is when it is part of a necessary description (ie. imagery in a book, history, describing someone from a group), and anything that served the purpose of grouping them into something equivalent to a "race" would be illegal.

In othe words, welcome to legal hell, where the legal system gets tied up in utterly useless bullshit where people are trying to claim they were only identifying someone as opposed to grouping by race.... and no, there's no fine line between the two - they overlap.

If you had to go around and constantly make sure you didn't identify people by race, I think that over time people would simply stop thinking about race (in urban centers, at least).

Thinking about it all the time will make you stop thinking about it? The hell are you smoking? If you're constantly having to watch your step for fear of breaking a stupid law, you're not going to forget anything. Chances are, it's actually going to breed resentment and piss people off.

Well, at the very worst, this would just be an interesting social experiment. What do you guys think? Would you alter the specifics of the hypothetical law?

What it would be is step one to stripping our country of the right to freedom of speech and allowing the government to turn us into sheep afraid to utter a single word of dissent, as it might just make us criminals. Worse, it has nothing to offer, because outlawing talking about race isn't going to make people stop being racist. Short of walking into everyone's home and personal life, and turning things into a complete fuckup of a police state, you aren't going to stop parents from teaching their kids that in like-minded communities.

Thinking about it all the time will make you stop thinking about it? The hell are you smoking? If you're constantly having to watch your step for fear of breaking a stupid law, you're not going to forget anything. Chances are, it's actually going to breed resentment and piss people off.



So racist bigots have to watch their step? ...hmm, would you like to point out the negative?

It's no stupid law, it is incredibly visionary.

DerDrache = owned.

Like a bitch.

If we pretend that IQ measures intelligence (and if we controlled for the cultural bias), and we found that the average black IQ is 90,

*80

source http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm

So racist bigots have to watch their step? ...hmm, would you like to point out the negative?

It's no stupid law, it is incredibly visionary.

He's not banning racist slurs, he's banning all mention of race whether it's racist or not. -Everyone- watches their step. Oh shit, mentioned that kid with the weird fro happened to be black by accident. Shit, you're going to JAIL, son.

Some people here have never heard of 1984.

Some people here have never heard of 1984.

You don't need read 1984 to reason out that giving the government the power to ban any kind of speech for "the betterment of society" is a really bad idea. There's no line to be drawn.

I will admit, however, that it does drive the point home quite nicely.

I don't know, some people on here are pretty stupid naturally. I don't know if Ronald Goldman or Deretard here could grasp the concept without reading that book aloud/copying it down word for word on to paper a few handfuls of dozens of times.

*80

source http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm

That doesn't change my point. Intelligence as grounds for superiority eliminates most people on the planet, including most whites.

That's not even addressing the major problems with sources discussing average IQ scores, since (1) most people haven't taken IQ tests, (2) IQ tests are strongly culturally biased, (3) IQ is not an invariable, determined quantity, and (4) (just for shits and giggles) my IQ is 130, and blacks who grew up in conditions similar to mine have similar IQs. You'll also notice that all articles talking about average black and white IQ scores don't provide any specifics about the methodology, the samples, or alternate ways in which their results can be interpreted. In other words, you have a vague set of information being presented by someone trying to win an argument, not by someone trying to do real science. You (and most of the other monkey racists out there) might realize this if you had any grasp of what science actually is.

What you have is an argument founded on lies, poor science, and stupidity, and even in the best-case fantasy scenario that it was partially true, it still wouldn't help the average racist.

EDIT: You know, frankly, it might be good if superior intelligence granted someone social superiority. I'd love to see all of the mentally inferior white racists working for my black ass.

mentally inferior white racists working for my black ass.

If you seriously think that we would be better off making it illegal to talk about race, then why do you keep saying stuff about white people, in reading through some of your posts, I've seen you usually classify racists as white, but saying that is racist in itself.

I guess what I'm saying is practice what you preach

If you seriously think that we would be better off making it illegal to talk about race, then why do you keep saying stuff about white people, in reading through some of your posts, I've seen you usually classify racists as white, but saying that is racist in itself.

I guess what I'm saying is practice what you preach

I (sometimes) use "white" as an adjective to describe a certain type of racist. There'd obviously be no ironic victory in having black racists slaving for me.

EDIT: You know, frankly, it might be good if superior intelligence granted someone social superiority. I'd love to see all of the mentally inferior white racists working for my black ass.

Why is it that you're constantly attacking whites, usually with racist or borderline racist comments?

Is it because.. :O Blacks can be racist too?

All your comments attacking racists have been squarely aimed at one group of people, whites. When we are quite possibly the most prejudiced against.

I previously bought up with you NAACP and BET and you said "Cry me a river".

Which makes me wonder if you're against all racism or just racism directed at your particular race?

Why is it that you're constantly attacking whites, usually with racist or borderline racist comments?

Is it because.. :O Blacks can be racist too?

All your comments attacking racists have been squarely aimed at one group of people, whites. When we are quite possibly the most prejudiced against.

I previously bought up with you NAACP and BET and you said "Cry me a river".

Which makes me wonder if you're against all racism or just racism directed at your particular race?

Lol I'm guessing you didn't read the 2 posts above yours when you wrote it.

@ DerDrache:
I (sometimes) use "white" as an adjective to describe a certain type of racist
Yeah, a certain type according to race
face it dude if this law you're arguing for was passed, you would be imprisoned.

Lol I'm guessing you didn't read the 2 posts above yours when you wrote it.

I didn't, had the reply page open and went to get a drink.

Why is it that you're constantly attacking whites, usually with racist or borderline racist comments?

Is it because.. :O Blacks can be racist too?

All your comments attacking racists have been squarely aimed at one group of people, whites. When we are quite possibly the most prejudiced against.

I previously bought up with you NAACP and BET and you said "Cry me a river".

Which makes me wonder if you're against all racism or just racism directed at your particular race?

I attack vocal racists such as yourself, and they happen to be white. My arguments, however, apply to anyone making a racist argument. Star Wars Fan, for instance, tends to make black supremacist arguments, and I regard him as a retard almost every chance I get.

I told you to "cry me a river", because you seemed to think it was terribly unacceptable that whites had to face some social consequences for the hundreds of years of racism and oppression against blacks. Present-day blacks still deal with consequences from the past (generally minor ones, but they're still there), and my point was that whites might have to deal with some consequences as well. I believe my actual response was in reference to Affirmative Action, and how qualified whites were sometimes being passed up for an underqualified black.

face it dude if this law you're arguing for was passed, you would be imprisoned.

I see your point. The law isn't passed though, so...it really slipped my mind.

Thanks for pointing it out to me though.

Methematician,

Please be patient...will get to you as soon as I have time to write up a 12000+ words post, and when I'm motivated enough to type them....mainly because your post lacks personal insults and somehow that make it bland and sorta demotivating ..... but I will address DerDarky first....cos ... it's funnier ....


^Any argument trying to claim that there are innate intelligence differences between the races is pure crap,

:eek: !!!1!!! Really ??? Why ???

mainly because there are no scientific studies that actually confirm it, yet there are many, many studies that prove that environment determines an individual's cognitive abilities much more than genetics.

Actually, no. They have been many^10 actual "scientific studies" that HAD confirmed that,....blacks actually have a lower than average IQs,...even here on totse.

PROVE !! :

Until a study shows that test-tube babies raised in 100% identical environments have different levels of cognitive abilities based on their genetic racial differences[2], racist arguments have no scientific support.

[1] Ar haaa....the fact you have time and again PHAILED to comprehend the term "race" and called the "act-of-categorizing people-into-different-races" without prejudice and discriminative intent ....a "racist" shows us just how dumb you are...

[2] While at one hand acknowledged the very existence of such a thing as "genetic RACIAL differences" (look @ it, I boldened it for you) while at the other hand proclaims that arguments based on racial differences have no "scientific support"....is in itself....self-contradictory, and a proof of your retardation.


(I say "test-tube babies" to highlight the fact that environmental factors such as the mother's psychological state or health can affect a child even during prenatal environment.)

[A] Ar haaa !! You see, while talking about *absence* of any scientific data to support my argument, projecting your argument onto me without any *SCIENTIFIC DATAS* to back them up...is hypocritical.....so let me ask you this :

DO YOU HAVE *ANY* CONCRETE, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR NOTION THAT A MOTHER'S PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE AND HEALTH....DOES IN FACT EFFECT AN UNBORN CHILD SHE'S CARRYING ??? If so, proceed to point

[B] If : A mother's psychological state and health can indeed effect the intelligence of the unborn child she's carrying,

Then : Intelligence or in this case, your STUPIDITY ARE HEREDITARY,...and here's why :

Your great^9 grandma was conceived and carried in a land of african some 200years ago, which as we all know, africa back then and even now, is a shithole with nothing but mud and mud-houses devoid of anything that can be described as "civilized", which surely did negatively effect your great^10 grandma's psychological state (the lack of written language prolly made her dumb) and health (living in a mud land and sleeping in a mud house sure ain't healthy), therefore, your great^9 grandma is surely gonna be less intelligent than someone who's great^9 grandma who was conceived and carried in an advanced city elsewhere. So you would *still* came out being less intelligent than a non black kid no matter how you tried to cut it........

lolololololololololo!!!!111!!!!!


[C] and that, due to the fact most of the black population in the US lives in the ghetto (crappy environment), therefore the future babies born out of these "hoods" will lead a crappy life as well,....which indirectly gave pro-genocide groups or genocide enthusiast a valid excuse to have these ghetto blacks neutered and all subsequent babies conceived and carried in da ghettos ..... efficiently TERMINATED. They (those babies conceived in da ghetto) are beyond salvation....

and don't even get me started on those who are in africa...

Shocking ..... but true (if your opinion are valid)

In addition to being unsupported scientifically, it's a completely worthless hypothesis in the real world. Why?

Yes...yes....please tell me why...the suspense are killing me !!!!

If we pretend that IQ measures intelligence (and if we controlled for the cultural bias),

IQpoint *is* the measure of intelligence(duh...intelligent quality..), just like Ft(feet) is the measure of height....it's a UNIT of measurement.

and we found that the average black IQ is 90, and the average white IQ is 100, that doesn't change the fact that there are millions of blacks who are well above both of those averages.

[1] No, the fact is you cannot have a majority of them with IQ points near or well above the 90points if your average is 90. Therefore, although with A million blacks that are above 90 IQpoint, they will be at least A million and ONE blacks with less than 90 IQ points...which brings us to point [2]...

[2] In a democratic country where the majority dictates and reflects the wants and wishes of *ALL*, and if MAJORITY of the blacks have lower than 90 IQ points.... it's suffice enough for us to conclude that blacks ....indeed have an IQ lower than...oh, wait, there ain't no one else...

ar hahahahahahah......bwwwwwwhahhahahah....

unless your a communist,
are you a red-black ?


Any argument that uses intelligence as a basis for "superiority" is of no use to the average person.

Note to self : In black culture, intelligence was not seen as a desirable trait nor was it being associated with the notion of superiority, and black female does not find highly intelligent black male as a superior mating partner/material, instead, the possession of illegal firearms and loads of illegal drugs seems to be the main attraction .....

You're simply arguing for an elite society, from which you would be excluded, and which would still be comprised of people of all races ([B]in uneven proportions, if you were correct, but a multi-racial society nonetheless).

No, I'm not arguing for an elite society, what I'm arguing here is all about the validity of the FACTS that leads to the "uneven proportions" that you'd mentioned.....and the application of statistics and data sets that leads to that "uneven proportion" to explain why you will be so-and-so, in this case, why your soooooo stuuuuupid.

BOTTOM LINE :
ME > YOU.
MY IQ > YOUR IQ

Bow to my intellectual superiority,

underman.

-------------------------EPILOGUE--------------------------------

I think I should stop now as putting a negro down can be sooooo satisfying and addictive,

and thanks to DerDarky, finally I understand why anyone would want to pay for their membership at StormFront, I would too if I wasn't a Jew....hmmmmm....:(

As I've told you in other threads, I'm not going to engage in such a debate with someone who doesn't have the education or reading skills to properly participate. Get an education, and then you can discuss topics such as intelligence, genetics, race, or science in general. It's clear that you'll continue misinterpreting everything that's said, and twisting it to fit with your uneducated layman's understanding of...just about everything.

If you don't understand mechanical engineering, then you (hopefully) wouldn't try to engage in a debate with someone who does. Given that you don't know a thing about genetics, the brain, or science in general, you shouldn't try to engage in a debate with someone who does. You know that you don't have any education in the matter, so stop trolling this thread. (No, reading fringe material you found on racist websites does not qualify you to discuss science.)

In any case, I'm going to stop hitting "View Post" on your replies. Every single point you've tried to make is wrong to the point of being both hilarious and painful, and I just don't have the time or energy to correct every single thing you say. I can rest easy knowing that only a relatively small percentage of people are stupid enough to actually agree with your insane ideas.

As I've told you in other threads, I'm not going to engage in such a debate with someone who doesn't have the education or reading skills to properly participate. Get an education, and then you can discuss topics such as intelligence, genetics, race, or science in general. It's clear that you'll continue misinterpreting everything that's said, and twisting it to fit with your uneducated layman's understanding of...just about everything.

If you don't understand mechanical engineering, then you (hopefully) wouldn't try to engage in a debate with someone who does. Given that you don't know a thing about genetics, the brain, or science in general, you shouldn't try to engage in a debate with someone who does. You know that you don't have any education in the matter, so stop trolling this thread. (No, reading fringe material you found on racist websites does not qualify you to discuss science.)

In any case, I'm going to stop hitting "View Post" on your replies. Every single point you've tried to make is wrong to the point of being both hilarious and painful, and I just don't have the time or energy to correct every single thing you say. I can rest easy knowing that only a relatively small percentage of people are stupid enough to actually agree with your insane ideas.

Guys..

Read this page of a particular argument DerDrache was in a week or two ago.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2172623&page=14

Robert Plywood argues that DerDrache shouldn't question the discover of DNA and his racialism because he is far more educated and knowledgeable.. DerDrache and his butt-buddy argue that education doesn't matter.. And now, here this guy is making PLYWOOD'S ARGUMENT!!! HAHA!!! The door swings both ways when this one is caught off guard and without the assistance of an argument team, paid for by his adoptive White parents. He even stole Plywood's engineer argument. LMFAO! What a joke..

Oh and despite "lacking the energy" to respond to his posts you have certainly put a great deal of effort in to editing that post in the past ten minutes. It changes damn near every time I refresh the page. Lucky I caught it on quote though, I'm certain that if I had not you would reformat it entirely.

Guys..

Read this page of a particular argument DerDrache was in a week or two ago.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2172623&page=14

Robert Plywood argues that DerDrache shouldn't question the discover of DNA and his racialism because he is far more educated and knowledgeable.. DerDrache and his butt-buddy argue that education doesn't matter.. And now, here this guy is making PLYWOOD'S ARGUMENT!!! HAHA!!! The door swings both ways when this one is caught off guard and without the assistance of an argument team, paid for by his adoptive White parents. He even stole Plywood's engineer argument. LMFAO! What a joke..

Oh and despite "lacking the energy" to respond to his posts you have certainly put a great deal of effort in to editing that post in the past ten minutes. It changes damn near every time I refresh the page. Lucky I caught it on quote though, I'm certain that if I had not you would reformat it entirely.

The problem with Plywood's argument was that it was the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. He claimed that 1) because Watson was a scientific authority figure*, his views automatically were correct and scientifically valid, and 2) more importantly, he made the insane assumption that Watson's deduction of DNA's structure somehow gave him credibility in a largely unrelated topic.

*Nevermind the fact that almost all other scientific authority figures strongly disagreed with him

Try again, stupid.

EDIT: Something you also misunderstood: Plywood said that he would not question an expert engineer's opinion, something which is also moronic. If you don't understand something, that does not mean you should blindly accept an expert's opinion on the subject matter. It means you should educate yourself and then attempt to evaluate the expert's opinion. If seeing the word "engineer" in both my and Plywood's posts blinded you to the big difference between our statements, then perhaps you too should refrain from posting in this thread.

My only point here is that if someone wants to talk about genetics, intelligence, psychology, and so on, then they need to actually have some education in those topics. Methematician's source of education is unscientific, biased fringe articles, not pure scientific material. Meth makes face-value, one-side observations, forms a hypothesis, independently decides that his hypothesis is a theory (a theory essentially being equivalent to a tried, tested, and undisputable fact), and then discounts or grossly warps all information so that it conforms to his "theory". If you don't see the problem with that, then you don't understand science, and you really should not be trying to participate in a scientific discussion.

You can edit that post until the cows come home, but cannot argue your way out of the fact that you contradicted yourself. Normally I would encourage you to just be a man about it and admit that you were wrong, but your embarrassing diligence to try and argue against what is obvious will be a good source of entertainment for the populace that lurk. Can I have your account now?

You can edit that post until the cows come home, you simply cannot argue your way out of the fact that you contradicted yourself. Normally I would encourage you to just be a man about it and admit that you were wrong, but your embarrassing diligence to try and argue against what is obvious will be a good source of entertainment for the populace that lurk.

There was nothing to argue. For one reason or another, you were incapable of understanding several statements, and I had to clarify them for you. Instead of focusing on whether I've edited my post or not, perhaps you should simply read what I wrote. I edit threads for clarity, to improve wording, or simply to add new comments. If you can't handle that, then go to a forum without an "edit" button.

EDIT: Admittedly, I realize that I haven't made it easy for you to walk away since I've insulted your intelligence. However...at some point I hope you calm down and just read everything with a neutral attitude.

That's all. I'm done with any discussion not pertaining to the original topic.

I did read it, as well as the multiple other renditions/arguments that came and went as seconds passed. I would advise that you give your own suggestion some consideration; if &t did not have an edit feature you would be the first forum persona to make it to the Darwin awards.

HAHA WOW.. You can't even refrain from editing posts about why you edit things? You aren't even adding any clarity you're just adding the same petty retorts and laughable rhetoric that is so trademark of your insecure persona. Perhaps you should stop treating this website like a drama and actually think about what you're saying rather than what it looks like, maybe everyone wouldn't hate you if you gave it a try.

The problem with Plywood's argument was that it was the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

*Nevermind the fact that almost all other scientific authority figures strongly disagreed with him.

On the subject of logical fallacy that looks suspisiously like an argumentum ad populum.

Sloppy DerDrache, very sloppy.

But anyway, why is this thread still alive (aside from you being trolled)? Although it's unlikely you'll admit it, your idea has been successfully dismissed as flawed several times already.

and then discounts or grossly warps all information so that it conforms to his "theory".

This is pretty much exactly what you do. If something is not in your favor (education, IQ and any test results) then you immediately discount it as irrelevant and find something that suggest blacks are equal to support your ridiculous theories.

As I've told you in other threads, I'm not going to engage in such a debate with someone who doesn't have the education or reading skills to properly participate.

From an earlier post :

I'm here to refute all your baseless points to EH-JUH-CATE the others, others who are not dumb and are not hypocritical and others who can comprehend facts in a logical and sensible manners....i'm here to help *THEM*, not you.

OOoooo.....so who's the one with limited comprehension and cognitive capabilities and TOTALLY LACKS THE READING SKILL REQUIRED now eh ??/

ehh ??

Answer : The one who'd inherited low IQ from her great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandma who was conceived in psychology state and health damaging land known to us as africa....

Get an education, and then you can discuss topics such as intelligence, genetics, race, or science in general.

So, what ehdjuhkasion did you say you have that would qualified you to talk about intelligence, genetics, races or the invalidity of it .....or "science" in general ???

WUT ???

It's clear that you'll continue misinterpreting everything that's said, and twisting it to fit with your uneducated layman's understanding of...just about everything.

If your so-called "logic" is logical and flawless, then there's no way I can turn and twists *your logic* to fit my side of the argument....are there ???

If you don't understand mechanical engineering, then you (hopefully) wouldn't try to engage in a debate with someone who does.

One need not to be an engineer to know that making a bridge out of paper and cardboard = phail bridge....

Or do you ? (cos your black)

Given that you don't know a thing about genetics, the brain, or science in general, you shouldn't try to engage in a debate with someone who does.

But did you ?

You know that you don't have any education in the matter,

But if I agreed with you, then I wouldn't need to be educated in this matter, would I ??

I mean, hey,....I didn't see you questioning Ron Smythberg's level of "education" or his understanding of genetics, molecular biology...quantum physics, mataphysicists, betaphysicists....etc-etc-cists.....w/e...

so stop trolling this thread.

You mean stop disagreeing with you right ???

(No, reading fringe material you found on racist websites does not qualify you to discuss science.)

Well, unless your hypocritical, reading stuffs from niggercentrist website won't qualify you to talk shit about your so-called "science" aswell....

In any case, I'm going to stop hitting "View Post" on your replies.

Lies !!! You said I'm in your ignore list somewhere earlier and...yet....here we are; again.....

Every single point you've tried to make is wrong[1] to the point of being both hilarious[2] and painful[3],

[1] = unless I'm black / support black superiority
[2] = ridiculing the truth, a technique done since time immemorial....
[3] = oooohhh....someone's nigger pride is hurt....

and I just don't have the time or energy to correct every single thing you say.

Cos your wrong yourself to begin with ...

I can rest easy knowing that only a relatively small percentage of people are stupid enough to actually agree with your insane ideas.

Yes...yes....it's has been statistically proven that extremely smart and intelligent people made up only a small, very-very small percentage of our population....sad but true....

^dude, DerNigger is a fucking stupid piece of Nubian shit, just ignore him

Unless you are bored and in need of entertainment, in which case, I see.

I think he is done here :)

This is pretty much exactly what you do. If something is not in your favor (education, IQ and any test results) then you immediately discount it as irrelevant and find something that suggest blacks are equal to support your ridiculous theories.

You seem to think that your completely uneducated opinion is as valid as my educated opinion, and that's your biggest problem right there. When you don't even know what an IQ test measures or what can cause it to vary, then you aren't a position to interpret IQ scores. In other words, you've formed a conclusion based on notions that aren't even correct. I've even taken the time in previous threads to tell you, in detail, about IQ tests, human intelligence, and different factors affecting both. I even cited studies for you to go and read about (actual scientific studies that only seek information objectively, in contrast to articles that simply try to argue a point). It went in one ear and out the other. I told you (or it might have been another racist, though you were probably in the thread as well) what you would need to do if you wanted to find evidence that there were innate racial differences in intelligence, and you essentially said that it was too much work.

Seriously...give it up. If you don't like black people, then that's your opinion, but stop deluding yourself into thinking there's evidence supporting your notions of superiority.

You seem to think that your completely uneducated opinion is as valid as my educated opinion, and that's your biggest problem right there. When you don't even know what an IQ test measures or what can cause it to vary, then you aren't a position to interpret IQ scores. In other words, you've formed a conclusion based on notions that aren't even correct. I've even taken the time in previous threads to tell you, in detail, about IQ tests, human intelligence, and different factors affecting both. I even cited studies for you to go and read about (actual scientific studies that only seek information objectively, in contrast to articles that simply try to argue a point). It went in one ear and out the other. I told you (or it might have been another racist, though you were probably in the thread as well) what you would need to do if you wanted to find evidence that there were innate racial differences in intelligence, and you essentially said that it was too much work.

Seriously...give it up. If you don't like black people, then that's your opinion, but stop deluding yourself into thinking there's evidence supporting your notions of superiority.


You once again only pick 1 of my points that you can address (IQ) and attack anything that does not support hatred of whitey and superiority of colored folk. That is why you have Zay and Vizier on your side, you all hate white folk and want superiority for your respective races.

Why don't you give it up, instead?

DerDrache, a Western education means nothing.

Fire in a crowded theatre?

Damn straight.

1. It is not for sure that people will stampede each other to death in their attempt to get out of the theatre.
2. So what some, or even all of them, do die trying to get out? They should have the mental capacity to realise that when people say something, there always a chance it can be a lie/untrue. If they fall for someone yelling "fire" without actually checking to make sure whether there really IS a fire, well, it's notbody's fault but their own.
3. Please refrain from just throwing out an example as a counter-argument. It's stupid, annoying, and rude. Try to have an actual argument, then supplement it with your example.

Racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group, correct? Thus, the elimination of racism will enhance civil liberties.

Hi shanin, you know I think you are a really cool poster and everything however I just have to say that you spewd so much bullshit that I had to wipe my computer screen with a Chlorax (spelling?) wipe. Now I am going to not only refute your argument, but also show you how to debate properly. Please watch closely.

1. First of all, "racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group". You need to properly define a/the term "racism" before you can have any sort of meaningful discussion regarding it. "Racism" means different things to different people. Some people consider the usage of racial slurs racism, while others don't (take me, for example). Furthermore, it's not even important what people's definition of racism is. As long as people do not turn their racist thoughts into actual actions (example, a racist muttering "nigger" however doesn't actually hurt a black person), nobody's civil liberties are being trampled upon.
2. You seem to think in a very confused way. You seem to think that people, especially racists, are not supposed to have racial/racist thoughts, am I correct in thinking this way? Furthermore, you seem to think that by eradicting racist THOUGHTS (note, not actions), we can achieve a "better" society? Is this true?
3. Who determines what constitutes a "better", or "good" society? If I say that a racist society is better, can you honestly say that I am absolutely wrong and that you are absolutely right?
4. Even assuming that it could be somehow determined what exactly is a "better" society (which by the way, it CAN"T, at least not objectively), is that reason enough to trample upon the civil liberties of racist people (who are people nevertheless, despite their being racist)? As in, just because YOU nshanin subjectively wants a racism-free society, it doesn't give you the right to go ahead and stop people from thinking whatever (racist) thoughts they wish to think.

shanin: you are a science student, are you not? Well if you want my advice, I would highly recommend that you go take a few courses in logic, or read up on the web on how to debate properly. For someone as intelligent as you (you are), you seem to make NO sense whatsoever when engaged in a debate. And this is ignoring the numerous times you resorted to personal attacks, or that stupid, annoying, childish eye-rolling icon to make a point (IF it can be called that).

lacks logic....For someone as intelligent as you (you are), you seem to make NO sense whatsoever wh....

Lololol .... Logical fallacy thar....

If one lacks logic, one *IS* not intelligent, because the ability to make logical deductions = intelligence.....

you = lower than average intelligence asians....

Lololol .... Logical fallacy thar....

If one lacks logic, one *IS* not intelligent, because the ability to make logical deductions = intelligence.....

you = lower than average intelligence asians....

fuck off, chinkyhoody

fuck off, chinkyhoody

Lol....I'm jew, bytch.

Lol....I'm jew, bytch.

are you cereal?

no wonder your so annoying

Hi shanin, you know I think you are a really cool poster and everything however I just have to say that you spewd so much bullshit that I had to wipe my computer screen with a Chlorax (spelling?) wipe. Now I am going to not only refute your argument, but also show you how to debate properly. Please watch closely.
It was mostly just exploratory, but I'll take it as far as I can:

1. First of all, "racism threatens the civil liberties of a certain group". You need to properly define a/the term "racism" before you can have any sort of meaningful discussion regarding it. "Racism" means different things to different people. Some people consider the usage of racial slurs racism, while others don't (take me, for example). Furthermore, it's not even important what people's definition of racism is. As long as people do not turn their racist thoughts into actual actions (example, a racist muttering "nigger" however doesn't actually hurt a black person), nobody's civil liberties are being trampled upon.

the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

I think that fits most perspectives well enough. I don't know how one can think that a race is superior without making decisions based on that perspective. You make no point here because internalized thoughts will always lead to actions correlated to those thoughts if the individual can get away with it, and too often they can. I suppose that's another alternative then, just monitoring actions to the point of spying.

2. You seem to think in a very confused way. You seem to think that people, especially racists, are not supposed to have racial/racist thoughts, am I correct in thinking this way? Furthermore, you seem to think that by eradicting racist THOUGHTS (note, not actions), we can achieve a "better" society? Is this true?
If you have no preconceptions based on race (or class, gender, etc.), why would you carry out actions that correlate to that? Unless there's some kind of unconscious racism in all human beings, which IIRC is something you've argued for before, but I think is lunacy. Obviously racists won't be able to be converted instantly, but I think that if individuals are not exposed to these thoughts then eventually these ideas will be phased out. I think by making value decisions that are not based on race we can achieve at the very least a society that makes more rational decisions (unless you consider racist choices to be rational, in which case I won't be able to argue with you).

3. Who determines what constitutes a "better", or "good" society? If I say that a racist society is better, can you honestly say that I am absolutely wrong and that you are absolutely right?
Like I said, if we assume that racist decisions are irrational, then a more rational society could be achieved. We could debate for days whether or not rationality gets us anywhere, but if you think civil liberties are important and that "all men/women are created equal", then racism is something that inherently detracts from somebody's civil liberties. Now you can take a totally negativistic approach and say that rationality and civil liberties lead us nowhere, but that would be intellectually dishonest because you yourself have said the opposite, so I ask you not to. I assumed from your prior statements that we roughly agree on what a good society should be.

4. Even assuming that it could be somehow determined what exactly is a "better" society (which by the way, it CAN"T, at least not objectively), is that reason enough to trample upon the civil liberties of racist people (who are people nevertheless, despite their being racist)? As in, just because YOU nshanin subjectively wants a racism-free society, it doesn't give you the right to go ahead and stop people from thinking whatever (racist) thoughts they wish to think.
I know that racist thoughts won't be eradicated immediately. I just ask that racist thoughts are not spread so that they can have no influence upon others. Racism is a very destructive meme and stopping it at its root would be best. Racist thought cannot be stopped (at least not with modern technology) so even if I wanted to stop thought (and as I've said, I just want to eradicate it in those ambiguous people, not in those who are already set to racism, who are basically unconvertable) then I would not be able to do it through current methods.

shanin: you are a science student, are you not? Well if you want my advice, I would highly recommend that you go take a few courses in logic, or read up on the web on how to debate properly. For someone as intelligent as you (you are), you seem to make NO sense whatsoever when engaged in a debate. And this is ignoring the numerous times you resorted to personal attacks, or that stupid, annoying, childish eye-rolling icon to make a point (IF it can be called that).

I think your disagreement with me is (wrongly) translating to your idea that I don't know how to debate. If that was the case you could have pointed out the logical fallacies in my argument rather than responding to them with rational concerns. I rarely use :rolleyes: unless the argument is just completely off-base and barely worth responding to. Everybody knows that the rolleyes symbol makes no point but just shows the distaste of the poster (in fact, if you scroll over the rolleyes post icon it says "unhappy", and that's what I use it as, a depiction of emotion). Show me where I have resorted to personal attacks.

are you cereal?

no wonder your so annoying

are you pointing finger at me,


cos there's 3 pointing right back at you....
chinkity chink
bytch

the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

This is YOUR definition of racism, and furthermore, not everybody shares the same belief/definition as you. My point is, there is not even a general consesus on what really constitutes racism. Or maybe there kind of is one, which is the government's definition, which we all pretty much bloody HAVE to adhere to, not because we genuinely agree with it, but because we are compelled by legal force to do so.


I don't know how one can think that a race is superior without making decisions based on that perspective.

1. You might not want to be so vague. I have a pretty good grasp of the English language (if I may say so myself) yet I am not exactly sure what you were trying to say here.
2. I think you are trying to say that, "people are racist because they believe one group of people are intrinsically superior to another group"? If yes, so what? What's it to you that people want to believe a certain thing?


You make no point here because internalized thoughts will always lead to actions correlated to those thoughts if the individual can get away with it, and too often they can

I made a promise to myelf that I would cut down on my internet swearing but it looks like I am breaking it. What a FUCKING load of SHIT.

1. You have to prove that thoughts WILL ALWAYS lead to actions. This is so butt-fuckingly false I want to stab my eyes with a fork. How the FUCK can anyone actually believe this? Are you a trolling? Cause if you are I think you have me outdone. However in the event that you aren't and that you really ARE that stupid: thoughts do not always lead to action. For example, when you see a beautiful girl, and you have sexual thoughts about her, say maybe raping her. Do you ALWAYS turn these thoughts into actions? Another example. Sometimes my mom makes me really mad and I fantasize about killing her. Do I always turn these thoughts into actions? No. And it's not because I can't get away with it, no. Even if I can, I wont do it. My point is, stop assuming wildly, fantastically stupid shit.
2. Please try to uhm, make sense. What the hell is "actions correlated to those thoughts"? Dont you mean "actions brought about by these thoughts", which would have made slightly more sense, except that it's circular argument. When you say "brought about", you are assuming that these actions have already been performed, which is what we are still debating about (as in, you claim thoughts lead to actions always, whereas I say otherwise). In other words, you are using circular reasoing which I am not sure is a logical fallacy or not but defintely very non-sensical.


I suppose that's another alternative then, just monitoring actions to the point of spying.

1. You need to show your reasoning how you went from "people can get away with their actions brought about by their thoughts" to "therefore we need to monitor them". OH MY FUCKING GOD, you are giving me PAIN. GOOOOOOOOOD. How can anyone be this mentally confused and not yet committed to a mental institution? shanin, tell me, please, you are a troll, right?
2. god...


If you have no preconceptions based on race (or class, gender, etc.), why would you carry out actions that correlate to that?

1. Not trying to be a grammer Nazi but, when you do things like this, as in, using conflicting tenses, it can cause confusion in your readers. I know you are not doing it on purpose, however it doesn't change the fact I now don't know if you are talking a purely hypotheical situatioin or a realistically possible one.
2. I know I said it before but, you really, truly make very little sense. I honestly dont know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that some people carry out actions against people because of their preconceptions? If yes, then A. you are assuming that people do carry out actions based on their conceptions; and B. so what? So what people carry out certain actions based on their preconceptions? As long as they are not breaking any laws, I don't see why they should be forbidden from doing them.


Unless there's some kind of unconscious racism in all human beings, which IIRC is something you've argued for before, but I think is lunacy.

1. Try not to use acronyms in a formal debate.
2. Your opinion ("I think it's lunacy') has no place in a formal debate. (that being said I know I commited the same sin too, as in the numerous times of crying out in pain of how incredibly dense you are)
3. I think you meant to say that, instead of calling it lunacy, that it's unfounded or illogical , or something to this effect. If this is the case, you need to show your reasoning why. You need to tell us WHY you think I am wrong in saying that there is inherent racism in all humans.


Obviously racists won't be able to be converted instantly, but I think that if individuals are not exposed to these thoughts then eventually these ideas will be phased out.

1. "Converted". Your diction betrays your prejudice. You are subjectively thinking that the racists are some sort of mental defects that need "converting", or "saving" or some such nonsense. Again, this is just your subjective opinion, hence is pretty useless in a formal debate.
2. You are assuming that by not exposing people to certain thoughts racism will be phased out. It's an assumption.
3. You are assuming that the rest of us agree with you that we want racism to be phased out. Some of us don't.
4. You are motherfucking advocating that we/the society/the government limit what thoughts/ideas people can or cannot have access to. This is so fucking unbelievably Orwellian that I now have no choice but to believe that you indeed are trolling. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, on Totse, would sincerely believe in this crap. You are a troll, and a very good one at that.

I think by making value decisions that are not based on race we can achieve at the very least a society that makes more rational decisions (unless you consider racist choices to be rational, in which case I won't be able to argue with you).

1. You are assuming by not making decisions based on race we can have a society that's more "rational". This may or may not be true.
2. You are assuming that a "rational" soceity is what people what. This may or may not be true.
3. You are thinking that the benefit (in this case, a rational society) justifies the means, aka, taking away people's rights to think whatever thoughts they want. This is I not only highly disagree with, it's actually very dangerous thinking.


I will tear apart the rest of your argument in my next post. For now I need to take a shit.

nshanin is one of the top contenders for stupidest totsean award of the year. I don't even know why he and his friends continue to post here anymore. He's just another 17 year old idiot (excuse my redundancy) that thinks he knows it all. I'm tired of this shit, he lives in the vast trailer park utopia that is Utah he is not one to discuss racial matters.

This is YOUR definition of racism, and furthermore, not everybody shares the same belief/definition as you. My point is, there is not even a general consesus on what really constitutes racism.


Main Entry:rac·ism Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:noun
Date:1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.



Well... that was easy ;)

Well... that was easy ;)

First of all, that was very eloquently spoken, for someone who uhm, i don't know, PUT ME ON IGNORE????
Second of all, the word "racism" is not merely a word. It is a term used to refer to a whole host of social, cultural, and biological phenomena (to sound like a pretentious cunt here), which, like I stated above, no general consensus exists for as of yet. Also, let's for a second pretend that racism is just a word. you are assuming that some online dictionary is the ultimate authority as to define a NEWLY COINED word (as opposed to words that have been existing in the English language through hundreds, if not thousands of years)
Thirdly, you know fully well what I meant. Stop playing the semantic game, it will only make me hate you more.

Anyone who says they put you on ignore just does it for the "fighting words" effect. Reality is, once you are on someone's ignore list their already undesirable urge to consider and take fear from your words increases as there is a "gift wrapped" effect placed upon their perverse and retarded state of mind.

Like I said, if we assume that racist decisions are irrational, then a more rational society could be achieved.

1. Make that "nshanin assumes", instead of "we assume", because I dont agree with you that racist thoughts are irrational.
2. You need to tell us what criteria you are using for determining whether a thought is irrational. Also, I could be wrong here but I don't believe a thought can ever be irrational; I thought "irrational" was meant to describe actions. I could be wrong.
3. I am just being a cunt here, but you should have also demonstrated how a rational society is desirable, or at least tell us why we should go towards a rational society. Though like I said I was just arguing for argument's sake, in reality I do believe that a rational society is a good thing.



We could debate for days whether or not rationality gets us anywhere, but if you think civil liberties are important and that "all men/women are created equal", then racism is something that inherently detracts from somebody's civil liberties.

1. As a matter of fact I do not believe men/women are created equal. What I do believe is that, "men are not created equal, however they should be treated equitably in the eyes of law and government", which is probably what you meant.
2. You really can't just claim something without backing it up. You should have demonstrated to us exactly how racism acts to detracts from people's civil liberties.


I know that racist thoughts won't be eradicated immediately. I just ask that racist thoughts are not spread so that they can have no influence upon others.

1. Just because you subjectively want something (aka, racist thoughts not be spread to others), it doesn't mean everybody else wants the same thing.
2. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that just because you want something (in this case, racist thoughts not spreading), you get to impose your will on others?


Racism is a very destructive meme and stopping it at its root would be best.

Subjective opinion, hence entirely useless in a formal debate.


Racist thought cannot be stopped (at least not with modern technology) so even if I wanted to stop thought (and as I've said, I just want to eradicate it in those ambiguous people, not in those who are already set to racism, who are basically unconvertable) then I would not be able to do it through current methods.

1. You are talking about hypothetical situations here (as in, even if I could, I wouldn't be able to...etc), and they are entirely useless in a formal debate.
2. In addition, try not to talk about what you personally/subjectively want to do. It has no place in a debate.


I think your disagreement with me is (wrongly) translating to your idea that I don't know how to debate.

1. Are you for real? "wrongly disagreeing"? What the fuckity fuck? When people disagee with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they must be wrong, it could either be that between the two of you, you believe in different things, or it could also be possible that it was you that was being wrong. In any event, that was a true gem. You managed to, very beautifully might I add, convey that I not only hold a different opinion from yours, it is also a wrong one, using only two words. Absolutely magnificent. And I am not being sarcastic either, I think it was truly impressive. From now on I am gonna start calling people "wrongly disagreeing with me".
2. I think that you don't know how to debate because you truly don't. I have shown you before, and I am showing you now, and if need be, I will show you again.

If that was the case you could have pointed out the logical fallacies in my argument rather than responding to them with rational concerns.
One doesn't need to be comitting logical fallacies to fail at debating.


I rarely use :rolleyes: unless the argument is just completely off-base and barely worth responding to. Everybody knows that the rolleyes symbol makes no point but just shows the distaste of the poster (in fact, if you scroll over the rolleyes post icon it says "unhappy", and that's what I use it as, a depiction of emotion). Show me where I have resorted to personal attacks.

Not that it's of any significance but once in response to a post of mine you told me to "get a life", which implied that I needed a life/was a loser...things like that. It was a personal attack, or at the very least, highly irrelevant. Your opinion has no place in a debate.

shanin:

I hope I didn't embarass you. I was just being terribly blunt. Although I do have to let you know that I am an ancient piece of old fart, who's been debating on the internet for eons, so I wouldn't feel too bad if I were you.

Besides, you are only 17 and you are already debating in a manner that's a lot better than I was at the same age. Not to mention compared to a lot of people on totse, many of whom are a lot older than you.

2. You need to tell us what criteria you are using for determining whether a thought is irrational. Also, I could be wrong here but I don't believe a thought can ever be irrational; I thought "irrational" was meant to describe actions. I could be wrong.


While I agree with most of your other points....this stands out.

The argument of what is "rational" and what is not,....is in itself,....irrational when viewed from the eyes of a cold, calculating and inanimate calculator....(metaphorically speakin)

This is because rationality, or the lack of it is just an opinion, and subjective, it's the perception of what's just or unjust imposed by the majority on/onto the minority...

Like : When 70% employers out there thinks that it's rational and just to pay you $10 to carry a bag of 100kg cement a mile, then paying you to lift that 100kg bag of cement a mile is.....rational.

But then when enough (more than 60%) of you congregate and start a union of cement bag carriers and demand that they pay $20 to carry the same bag of cement a mile... then...paying you $20 to carry that bag of 100kg cement a mile will be ......reasonable...and rational.

Therefore...you asking a clarification for a *subjective* perception instead of throwing it out on sight....denies you the right of winning in any debate...

that is all....thank you.

This is YOUR definition of racism, and furthermore, not everybody shares the same belief/definition as you. My point is, there is not even a general consesus on what really constitutes racism. Or maybe there kind of is one, which is the government's definition, which we all pretty much bloody HAVE to adhere to, not because we genuinely agree with it, but because we are compelled by legal force to do so.
That's what Princeton's wordnet gives and most other sources give a variation on that. If you want to say that there is no agreed-upon definition so the point is unarguable then say it. Otherwise you'll have to agree on one definition for the sake of discussion. This doesn't prove your point in the slightest.

1. You might not want to be so vague. I have a pretty good grasp of the English language (if I may say so myself) yet I am not exactly sure what you were trying to say here.
2. I think you are trying to say that, "people are racist because they believe one group of people are intrinsically superior to another group"? If yes, so what? What's it to you that people want to believe a certain thing?
You are implying that racist thoughts don't necessarily lead to racist actions. I retort with "racist thoughts will necessarily lead to racist decisions".



I made a promise to myelf that I would cut down on my internet swearing but it looks like I am breaking it. What a FUCKING load of SHIT.

1. You have to prove that thoughts WILL ALWAYS lead to actions. This is so butt-fuckingly false I want to stab my eyes with a fork. How the FUCK can anyone actually believe this? Are you a trolling? Cause if you are I think you have me outdone. However in the event that you aren't and that you really ARE that stupid: thoughts do not always lead to action. For example, when you see a beautiful girl, and you have sexual thoughts about her, say maybe raping her. Do you ALWAYS turn these thoughts into actions? Another example. Sometimes my mom makes me really mad and I fantasize about killing her. Do I always turn these thoughts into actions? No. And it's not because I can't get away with it, no. Even if I can, I wont do it. My point is, stop assuming wildly, fantastically stupid shit.
2. Please try to uhm, make sense. What the hell is "actions correlated to those thoughts"? Dont you mean "actions brought about by these thoughts", which would have made slightly more sense, except that it's circular argument. When you say "brought about", you are assuming that these actions have already been performed, which is what we are still debating about (as in, you claim thoughts lead to actions always, whereas I say otherwise). In other words, you are using circular reasoing which I am not sure is a logical fallacy or not but defintely very non-sensical.
The key phrase there was "if the individual can get away with it". Hooray for jumping to conclusions. "Thoughts" in this context means deep-rooted beliefs.


1. You need to show your reasoning how you went from "people can get away with their actions brought about by their thoughts" to "therefore we need to monitor them". OH MY FUCKING GOD, you are giving me PAIN. GOOOOOOOOOD. How can anyone be this mentally confused and not yet committed to a mental institution? shanin, tell me, please, you are a troll, right?
2. god...
I said it's another alternative. Look closer at the text.

1. Not trying to be a grammer Nazi but, when you do things like this, as in, using conflicting tenses, it can cause confusion in your readers. I know you are not doing it on purpose, however it doesn't change the fact I now don't know if you are talking a purely hypotheical situatioin or a realistically possible one.
2. I know I said it before but, you really, truly make very little sense. I honestly dont know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that some people carry out actions against people because of their preconceptions? If yes, then A. you are assuming that people do carry out actions based on their conceptions
Is this then a wrong assumption? What the fuck else do people do?
; and B. so what? So what people carry out certain actions based on their preconceptions? As long as they are not breaking any laws, I don't see why they should be forbidden from doing them.
Law is a human construct. Nazis weren't breaking any laws, but we assume that their actions were wrong because rational people don't fetishize law. They are violating ethical principles and removing the right to liberty of those towards whom their racist actions are directed.

1. Try not to use acronyms in a formal debate.
Formal debate on totse? Lulz.
2. Your opinion ("I think it's lunacy') has no place in a formal debate. (that being said I know I commited the same sin too, as in the numerous times of crying out in pain of how incredibly dense you are)
3. I think you meant to say that, instead of calling it lunacy, that it's unfounded or illogical , or something to this effect. If this is the case, you need to show your reasoning why. You need to tell us WHY you think I am wrong in saying that there is inherent racism in all humans.[/quote]
I told you why in the thread where you propounded this argument. If you want to continue that debate here feel free but you'll have to bring the reasoning back (if you'd like to do that, and I have no doubt that you don't and that was just a hypothetical used in an attempt to lecture me as to what you feel are the merits of debate).

1. "Converted". Your diction betrays your prejudice. You are subjectively thinking that the racists are some sort of mental defects that need "converting", or "saving" or some such nonsense. Again, this is just your subjective opinion, hence is pretty useless in a formal debate.
I think racists make irrational decisions and thus need to be "converted" through an act of irrationality because that is all that they will understand. This is not a subjective belief because there is nothing rational about holding preconceptions about individuals based on their (race, gender, class, etc.) Racists, sexists, and classists alike are equally irrational because they make value judgments based not on reason but on irrational preconceived dogmas. Just saying that it's subjective doesn't make it so.
2. You are assuming that by not exposing people to certain thoughts racism will be phased out. It's an assumption.
It's a correct assumption because there is no reason for racism to resurface if it is phased out. You know WAN, I don't try to lecture you and feel intellectually superior by giving hypotheticals and trying to make you explain every word you use. I'd appreciate it if you returned the favor.
3. You are assuming that the rest of us agree with you that we want racism to be phased out. Some of us don't.
And those people are irrational because they oppose the phasing-out of an irrational and harmful social institution.
4. You are motherfucking advocating that we/the society/the government limit what thoughts/ideas people can or cannot have access to. This is so fucking unbelievably Orwellian that I now have no choice but to believe that you indeed are trolling. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, on Totse, would sincerely believe in this crap. You are a troll, and a very good one at that.
Nobody is controlling thought. Just media.

1. You are assuming by not making decisions based on race we can have a society that's more "rational". This may or may not be true.
As I've said, racism is an irrational institution because it holds unquestioned and unvalidated dogmas and uses those dogmas to make decisions which are themselves irrational. I have yet to hear an objection to this point from you, besides "maybe, maybe not!" so I will assume that you agree with me but refuse to say so out of pride.
2. You are assuming that a "rational" soceity is what people what. This may or may not be true.
You are assuming that what people want is relevant!

Two can play at this game.
3. You are thinking that the benefit (in this case, a rational society) justifies the means, aka, taking away people's rights to think whatever thoughts they want. This is I not only highly disagree with, it's actually very dangerous thinking.
Nobody is taking away the right to free thought. You should read my posts more closely because I specifically state the opposite.

I will tear apart the rest of your argument
This is an assumption that may or may not be true and is in fact your own subjective reasoning.

The argument of what is "rational" and what is not,....is in itself,....irrational when viewed from the eyes of a cold, calculating and inanimate calculator....(metaphorically speakin)

You could very well be right, I don't know. What I do know is that it might be necessary to define what "rational" really means, just to make sure we are even talking about the same thing. I am not disagreeing with you that it's irrational. I am just saying that we need a definition first.

Also, I probably wouldn't call arguing what is rational or not irrational because it smacks of circular reasoning to me...how can you call something irrational when you haven't determined what is rational/irrational?

Lastly, not to be a cunt but I probably would avoid metaphors in a formal debate.


Therefore...you asking a clarification for a *subjective* perception instead of throwing it out on sight....denies you the right of winning in any debate...

Not to be rude but I kind of chuckled at "right of winning a debate". Believe it or not when I enter a debate I just want to debate for the sake of debating. I honestly don't care if I "win" or not, and that is assuming one can ever "win" a debate like it's a sport (unless you are talking about like in a court case where there is a judge presiding then yes I suppose in that case it is possible to win a debate)

WAN I'll let you read my response before I reply to the rest of your post as you clearly just responded to everything as you went along rather than reading the whole thing and then responding after that, which would have allowed you to synthesize my position. This is just all a logical method of deduction and entirely subjective, however, so feel free to disregard it.

That's what Princeton's wordnet gives and most other sources give a variation on that. If you want to say that there is no agreed-upon definition so the point is unarguable then say it. Otherwise you'll have to agree on one definition for the sake of discussion. This doesn't prove your point in the slightest.

1. I am not going to use Princeton's wordnet because I A. don't want to, B. don't have to. I rely on my own definition of racism.
2. Yes, I believe there is no agreed-upon definition of the word "racism". I have said it.
3. No. I don't "have to" do anything. Not for the sake of discussion if I don't want to. Though I see your point; yes we do need to come to a conclusion as to what racism really means. You insist on using your source, and I insist on using mine. Standoff? Pretty much.
4. I didn't even have a point. I was merely pointing out the fact that between the two of us there is no consensu on what racism really means, and this is a FACT. Tell me, where in all this is my "point"? What did you think my "point" was?


You are implying that racist thoughts don't necessarily lead to racist actions. I retort with "racist thoughts will necessarily lead to racist decisions".

1. I am not implying. I am saying outloud that racist thoughts don't necessarily lead to racist actions.
2. You are assuming there is an agreed-upon definition of what "racist actions" is. It is untrue. If I find black people obnoxious and I refuse to let one of them come to my party, which is an action, is this "racist ac.tion"?
3. You are assuming that racist actions are bad. I beg to differ. I think some racist actions are not only good, they should in fact be actively pursued.
4. You need to prove your claim. Prove that racist thoughts will necessarily lead to racist actions (by the way, I could have sworn you said "always", instead of "necessarily". Not sure though)


The key phrase there was "if the individual can get away with it". Hooray for jumping to conclusions.

1. How was I supposed to know what your key phrase was? As for as I am concerned, anything you said in your post is fair game for analysis.
2. I wasn't "jumping to conclusions". I was, however, arriving at conclusions based on what you said. If it appears that I was "jumping" to conclusions, it was because you didn't do a good job explaining yourself.


"Thoughts" in this context means deep-rooted beliefs.

1. Then you probably should have said "deep-rooted beliefs", instead of "thoughts".
2. Backpedalling.
3. By saying racism is a "deeply rooted belief" you are defining something for others, which you have no right to do. Only people themselves can decide whether these racist "things", for a lack of better term, are thoughts or deeply rooted believes.
4. Deep-rooted believes do not necessarily lead to actions. I can tell you I honestly believe animal torturers should be killed, however I as a matter of fact, am not killing them.



I said it's another alternative. Look closer at the text.

1. It doesn't matter if it's another alternative. You still should have shown the readers your logical train of thought. How you went from A to B.
2. Keep thinking that people need to "look closer at the texts". I got a better suggestion, how about you start presenting an argument that's easier to follow?



Law is a human construct. Nazis weren't breaking any laws, but we assume that their actions were wrong because rational people don't fetishize law. They are violating ethical principles and removing the right to liberty of those towards whom their racist actions are directed.

1. YOU think nazis were wrong. I don't.
2. What does "fetishizing law" even mean? You need to stop assuming people know what you are talking about, especially when it's not a commonly understood term/concept, such as law-fetishization.
3. YOU think they were violating ethical principles. I don't. And I could back this up too except I am not because I don't want to derail. You can, however, be assured that I wasn't simply saying no just to be disagreeable.
4. When you said the Nazis were removing the Jews' right to liberty you were assuming that Jews had the right to reside in Germany and prosper among. They didn't, and they still don't.


Formal debate on totse? Lulz.
1. Good job showing that you take debating on totse lightly, which some might interpret as not taking totse seriously, which probably does not endear you to a whole lot of people.
2. This attitude of yours elicited in me strong, negative feelings towards you (not that you'd care). You are not taking debating with me seriously, therefore, you are not taking me seriously.
3. Keep thinking this isn't a formal debate. You actually have a point, because it technically isn't. Although if you had, you would have at least learnt something from it. I hope you keep thinking this way so that you will never, ever get good at debating.
4. Fuck off and die.



I told you why in the thread where you propounded this argument. If you want to continue that debate here feel free but you'll have to bring the reasoning back (if you'd like to do that, and I have no doubt that you don't and that was just a hypothetical used in an attempt to lecture me as to what you feel are the merits of debate).

1. I can honestly tell you I don't know what you are referring to, and furthermore I really don't know why you don't think there's inherent racism in humans.
2. Apologies if I came off like I was trying to lecture you. I wasn't.


I think racists make irrational decisions and thus need to be "converted" through an act of irrationality because that is all that they will understand.

Like I said before, you are assuming that you are right, and that the racists are wrong and furthermore, they need to be converted. This is not necessarily the case. How would you feel if the racists said that they felt you were wrong and they wanted to convert YOU? See how this works? It's a different of opinion/belief. You have to respect the other party's right to believe what they want to believe, no matter how you strongly you personally think they are wrong, or how sure you are that their believes are bad for the society.


This is not a subjective belief because there is nothing rational about holding preconceptions about individuals based on their (race, gender, class, etc.)

1. I just want to let you know that when I say what I am about to say, I am not trying to lecture you. I am just expressing my emotion.
2. You FUCKING DUMB SHIT. Do you even fucking know what "subjective" means? It means perceived, rather than independent of mind. When you say something is "rational", it's an opinioin, it's perceived, it's not existing independent of the mind, hence it IS subjective, by definition.
3. It is yet to be established that holding preconceptions about people based on age, sex, race...etc is irrational.
4. Even if it is, so what? You can't just bloody tell people they now can't hold "irrational" thoughts (which is only significant to you), just because you Nshanin personally consider it to be bad. Let me be very blunt here. Do NOT fucking pass judgment on what people are thinking, because you know what? It's none of your motherfucking business.


Racists, sexists, and classists alike are equally irrational because they make value judgments based not on reason but on irrational preconceived dogmas. Just saying that it's subjective doesn't make it so.

1. You fucking unbelievably dumb shit. Stop saying so and so are irrational as if it carried some sort of weight. It DOESN'T. Because you know why? You are assuming that the rest of us gives a shit about whether someone's rational or not. Some of us don't. So please stop acting like just because you personally find something to be "irrational", it automatically gives weight to whatever shit you are spouting.
2. See above for a definition of "subjective". What you just said is exactly what the word "subjective" describes. You need some severe help in how to debate. I mean it. Not trying to lecture you or to sound condescending.


It's a correct assumption because there is no reason for racism to resurface if it is phased out.

You fucking unimaginably stupid mongrelised piece of quasi-Mongol shit. How the FUCk can a motherfucking ASSUMPTION be true? When you assume something, you are taking it to be true despite not knowing whether it is indeed true. GOD YOU FUCKING MONGREL SHIT.



You know WAN, I don't try to lecture you and feel intellectually superior by giving hypotheticals and trying to make you explain every word you use. I'd appreciate it if you returned the favor.

1. I was under the impression that I didn't give any hypotheticals.
2. Apologies if I came across as trying to lecture you, or feeling superior to you.
3. From now on, I will try my best to stop behaving in a condescending way. I won't, however, stop calling you names. Not because I am mean or I hate you, it's just that your stupidity is fantastically profound that I really need an outlet, lest my brain should explode.


And those people are irrational because they oppose the phasing-out of an irrational and harmful social institution.

1. I am repeating myself here. You are assuming everybody here all uniformly agrees with you that being irrational is bad.
2. You also need to prove how these racists are irratonal.
3. "Harmful" social institution to YOU, not to some of us. Learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective" ASAP please, for all that is decent in the world.


Nobody is controlling thought. Just media.

I don't know what you are trying to say here but please explain this: "but I think that if individuals are not exposed to these thoughts then eventually these ideas will be phased out".

Are you, or are you not advocating that we (be it the society, or the government) try to prevent people from being exposed to certain type of thoughts? Is this what you are saying?


As I've said, racism is an irrational institution because it holds unquestioned and unvalidated dogmas and uses those dogmas to make decisions which are themselves irrational.

You said a whole mouthful but you didn't make any sense.

1. Prove racism is irrational.
2. Show that irrationality is bad.
3. So what racism holds "unquestioned and unvalidated dogmas"? Is it any of your fucking business?

WAN I'll let you read my response before I reply to the rest of your post as you clearly just responded to everything as you went along rather than reading the whole thing and then responding after that, which would have allowed you to synthesize my position. This is just all a logical method of deduction and entirely subjective, however, so feel free to disregard it.

Sarcasm only makes you an even more annoying piece of shit, I wouldn't do it if I were you.

I have yet to hear an objection to this point from you, besides "maybe, maybe not!" so I will assume that you agree with me but refuse to say so out of pride.

1. You motherfucking unbelievably dense cunt. Do you know why I was being "uncomittal", as you were implying, in saying "this may or may not be true"? Because that is the motherfucking OBJECTIVE truth, you thick-skulled piece of mongrel shit. When you are assuming something, you AS A MATTER OF FACT, do NOT know if you are right or not. God this is killing me.
2. LAWL@"pride". You think I am refusing to do something out of "pride"? This my friend, is called projecting yourself onto others. Some nice self-pwnage you got going there, shanin.



You are assuming that what people want is relevant!

Two can play at this game.

1. You cunted up piece of Asiatic shit. Of course what people want is relevant. You were talking about passing laws to prohibit certain thoughts and/or speeches, am I correct? If yes, then yes, what people want is HIGHLY relevant here. For fuck sake, do you ever make sense?
2. "two can play this game"? This tells me so much about you that I can honestly say I am highly put off by you. For one thing it showed that you thought I was merely being disagreeable when I said "you are assuming this...you are assuming that...". If that's the case, you haven't learnt a thing. One should always try to avoid assuming things in a debate, or at the very least, be very conscious about it if one absolutely needs to make one. Secondly, you sounded like a fucking child. "you did something bad to me, i am gonna fire it right back, just to see how you like it!!!" GOOOOOD. You are so fucking unbelievably annoying I wish I could go through the computer screen and spit on your face, you fucking quasi-Mongol.


Nobody is taking away the right to free thought. You should read my posts more closely because I specifically state the opposite.

You could very well be right. I sort of drew my conclusion after reading that last paragraph of yours. As long as you are not advocating that we make laws prohibiting racist thoughts or speeches, I got no beef with you.


This is an assumption that may or may not be true and is in fact your own subjective reasoning.

You are technically correct, however it doesn't change the fact that you knew fully well what I meant and you were just doing this as some sort of extremely childish retaliation, which makes you even more of a cunt in my book.

Can't respond now but rest assured I'll have a question for every meaningless question you ask me. When finals are over.