Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Aradhus thinks only white people can be racist which is quite racist actually so at some level you're right! I'm just stating the obvious equality in voting for someone because of their skin colour is equally racist/bigot regardless of the colour prefered.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
Yes, YES! Exactly. That's exactly what I was saying. Obviously.Gillipig wrote:Aradhus thinks only white people can be racist which is quite racist actually so at some level you're right! I'm just stating the obvious equality in voting for someone because of their skin colour is equally racist/bigot regardless of the colour prefered.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
They're not being racist, they're just saying that some unrelated things make it okay to be a racist.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
No, it's a legitimate question.Snorri1234 wrote:They're not being racist, they're just saying that some unrelated things make it okay to be a racist.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
Of course, these guys think that "I'm not a racist, but.." put in front of your racist ramblings makes you not a racist. ("i have black friends!" is also a classic. particularly if they mention they let those friends use their bathroom)
It is probably not worth getting too worried about Scotty. This was all predicted long ago.Phatscotty wrote:
No, it's a legitimate question.
If I said I won't vote for Obama because he is black, then that is racist right? For sure bigoted (for u patchy). That is making a decision based solely on the color of someones skin. Do we agree here?
If I said I will vote for Obama because he is black, that is still making a decision based solely on the color of someones skin. Is it not?
I am just making an objective point. It's the same thing.
kinda blew my mind for a sec there. I have to put Marx down and pick up Plato for at least a couple days. My grandpa always tried to get me to read it, but I go in spurts.patches70 wrote:It is probably not worth getting too worried about Scotty. This was all predicted long ago.Phatscotty wrote:
No, it's a legitimate question.
If I said I won't vote for Obama because he is black, then that is racist right? For sure bigoted (for u patchy). That is making a decision based solely on the color of someones skin. Do we agree here?
If I said I will vote for Obama because he is black, that is still making a decision based solely on the color of someones skin. Is it not?
I am just making an objective point. It's the same thing.
Plato had some criticism for the Democratic process. He felt it was quite flawed, partially for the above reasons. People end up voting with their emotions instead of with wisdom. Plato believed that Democracy always devolves into a popularity contest instead of choosing the wisest leader. People end up forgetting about civic responsibility.
When people vote based strictly on racial or even party lines, they are not practicing correct civic responsibility. Good luck convincing people of that though. Doesn't matter the race, it is all the same. No matter what, those who are so irresponsible will always justify their actions one way or another, in politics and in life.
Plato's alternative would be quite...totalitarian... by our standards though.
I think that post sums up this guy pretty goodAradhus wrote:Yes, YES! Exactly. That's exactly what I was saying. Obviously.Gillipig wrote:Aradhus thinks only white people can be racist which is quite racist actually so at some level you're right! I'm just stating the obvious equality in voting for someone because of their skin colour is equally racist/bigot regardless of the colour prefered.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
Its like, when your dad would be fucking you in the ass, and you'd catch a glimpe of his object of love, it doesn't matter that his is bigger, because you've got one too. Yeah, ok, so he uses his more, has been active longer, and can do more damage, but who cares, its all equal. really.
I thought a racist was defined as anyone who disagrees with liberalism?Gillipig wrote:I think that post sums up this guy pretty goodAradhus wrote:Yes, YES! Exactly. That's exactly what I was saying. Obviously.Gillipig wrote:Aradhus thinks only white people can be racist which is quite racist actually so at some level you're right! I'm just stating the obvious equality in voting for someone because of their skin colour is equally racist/bigot regardless of the colour prefered.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
Its like, when your dad would be fucking you in the ass, and you'd catch a glimpe of his object of love, it doesn't matter that his is bigger, because you've got one too. Yeah, ok, so he uses his more, has been active longer, and can do more damage, but who cares, its all equal. really.! What a joke
I think Snorri1234 is confused over the definition of racism. Racism is; The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist Check through my posts and see if you can find any white power inspired comments! I'm only trying to be objective and if that insults you then you're just hating on the truth! Which is fine if you admit it but don't go around blabbering about that everyone who's interested in this topic is a racist
!
No that would be a pretty idiotic.Phatscotty wrote:I thought a racist was defined as anyone who disagrees with liberalism?Gillipig wrote:I think that post sums up this guy pretty goodAradhus wrote:Yes, YES! Exactly. That's exactly what I was saying. Obviously.Gillipig wrote:Aradhus thinks only white people can be racist which is quite racist actually so at some level you're right! I'm just stating the obvious equality in voting for someone because of their skin colour is equally racist/bigot regardless of the colour prefered.Neoteny wrote:Is this the thread where racists come to feel better about themselves? Yeah, thought so.
Its like, when your dad would be fucking you in the ass, and you'd catch a glimpe of his object of love, it doesn't matter that his is bigger, because you've got one too. Yeah, ok, so he uses his more, has been active longer, and can do more damage, but who cares, its all equal. really.! What a joke
I think Snorri1234 is confused over the definition of racism. Racism is; The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist Check through my posts and see if you can find any white power inspired comments! I'm only trying to be objective and if that insults you then you're just hating on the truth! Which is fine if you admit it but don't go around blabbering about that everyone who's interested in this topic is a racist
!

Actually I wouldn't call that comment racist! Racisim is the belief of one race being superior to another! You only said f'ck white people so you haven't said that caucasians are better or worse than other races.Army of GOD wrote:f*ck white people
Another interpretation might be that he's saying the healthcare bill would stop people from being exploited, and given the history of black people, they should be able to relate, and not want anyone to be exploited.Phatscotty wrote:
Jesse Jackson, just to site one example, said "You can not call yourself black and be against the healthcare bill" Thereby implying it's for the blacks, and any white who stand against it are racist. Sharpton and others have echoed this claim many times many different ways.
Everyone knows that the Aryans are the superior race of people. Just ask Hitler and all the studies done that concur with this conclusion.Gillipig wrote:Actually I wouldn't call that comment racist! Racisim is the belief of one race being superior to another! You only said f'ck white people so you haven't said that caucasians are better or worse than other races.Army of GOD wrote:f*ck white people
Here's a question for you guys; Can you be racist and have right?
If I say black people are better at running than white people I'm saying something racist aka black are superior to white people. Yet that's 100% true! There's little doubt that black people have genetic advantages when it comes to running.
In the same way I can say that white people have higher IQ than black people (that is documented and supported by several scientific studies and NOT just racist ramblings) ! And that would also be 100% true and equally racist. But somehow society wouldn't see it the same way. Society would twist it into the latter comment being deeply racist and and the first comment not racist at all which is just utter bullshit because they're both equally valid and racist!
If you want sources for the IQ thing I'll be more than happy to post them here but I won't post them if no one disputes this being true!

Lol according to IQ and race studies east asians have higher iq than caucasians and I doubt Hitler would sign in on thatnotyou2 wrote:Everyone knows that the Aryans are the superior race of people. Just ask Hitler and all the studies done that concur with this conclusion.Gillipig wrote:Actually I wouldn't call that comment racist! Racisim is the belief of one race being superior to another! You only said f'ck white people so you haven't said that caucasians are better or worse than other races.Army of GOD wrote:f*ck white people
Here's a question for you guys; Can you be racist and have right?
If I say black people are better at running than white people I'm saying something racist aka black are superior to white people. Yet that's 100% true! There's little doubt that black people have genetic advantages when it comes to running.
In the same way I can say that white people have higher IQ than black people (that is documented and supported by several scientific studies and NOT just racist ramblings) ! And that would also be 100% true and equally racist. But somehow society wouldn't see it the same way. Society would twist it into the latter comment being deeply racist and and the first comment not racist at all which is just utter bullshit because they're both equally valid and racist!
If you want sources for the IQ thing I'll be more than happy to post them here but I won't post them if no one disputes this being true!
Perhaps you should be known as Gilliracistpig?
As much as I appreciate that you read my sources carefully you must've missed the underlying red thread, that even with the environmental aspect taken into account it doesn't compensate for the entire difference in IQ between races!! That's what these studies show and I think the east asian vs caucasian is a brilliant example to demonstrate just that. If environment was the only variable when it comes to IQ in humans, east asians would've scored lower on IQ tests than caucasians! (unless you argue that the average chinese has a more IQ stimulating environment than we do lol) They score higher on IQ tests that were made by and for westerner's than we do ourselves despite everything! The total IQ difference between east asians and africans can't in a million years be explained without talking genetics! My question was if you can say something racist (a.k.a one race superior to another) and be right but I think I've already answered that question! The real question however should be; can society ever accept that there are differences between races?BigBallinStalin wrote:Let me show you where you're wrong:
One's environment still plays a large role in determining one's IQ. I've yet to stumble upon any research that states what proportion of environmental factors and what proportion of genetic background determine one's IQ. In your second link, Charles Murry himself can't even answer that.
The first link you mention (Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R, 2005, "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability") is actually riddled with errors. In the exact same June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, if you even bothered to actually read it, you would have noticed an article titled "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)."
It's a lovely lambasting of what went wrong in their research, so you should read it to further counterbalance your misled views. (Did you even read the original PDF "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability", or did you just read some guy's summary?)
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30 ... 0years.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/ (for all the PDFs and not some crummy summary written by god knows who on medical-news.net).
However, people have to be careful when they conduct such research because they might be labeled as racist. It depends on what they conclude, how they were led to their conclusions, and of course on people's perceptions (which can easily be led astray).
I voted no.GabonX wrote:I wanna know who voted "no".
what about choosing someone based solely on the color of their skin? as the poll specifically asks...Lootifer wrote:I voted no.GabonX wrote:I wanna know who voted "no".
Simple logic people:
- Disliking something implies you don like that option.
- Liking something does not imply you don't like the alternative.
More information is required on the side of the supporter to determine the solution.