jefferiah

Surely if I have "gone on at length" you could provide just one example and quote it here. I'm awaiting your example. How is discussing white people racism? No one is saying that there is some genetic predisposition which makes other races inferior. To discuss things such as the status of white people pertaining to possible discrimination against them in the future is not racist, Cybercoma. No one is advocating for the destruction, oppression of another "race", nor for the superiority of any race. The only possible comment you could be referring to which attempts to belittle one of the non-existant races is Posit's own.

"She would have a chance at my vote even if she ran for the Natural Law Party" Now I am not trying to implicate you M. Dancer. I am just saying its ridiculous to scream sexism over everything, and not to you. I really don't think you are being sexist. I am just using an example of how easy it is to make the implication. Now I have to ask. Why do they call you Mo Mo? Abercrombie and Fitch is a clothing store that supposedly hires only good looking popular appealing individuals.

No comment on your own sexist remarks? Lol, J. You must be a Liberal MP, yourself. The only thing you can argue about is over minor statements perceived as great crimes. Take a look at M. Dancer's applause of Dhalla's fine body and how he would vote (give her a job) based on it. Care to interpret that in such a way that you could compare M. Dancer's mentality to the Abercrombie and Fitch mentality or the Hooters mentality. Of course you won't because it would be ridiculous to get all hot and bothered over a silly half-serious statement. Righto? Now the argument is about how a newspaper made the switch between villain and hero. Care to discuss it? In the future when J. cannot stick to an argument but tries to lead us off on a tangent of sexism over some trifle, I would suggest we just ignore him. Any takers?

The thing with many of these crimes is the brutality which goes quite beyond the level necessary to procure some loot from a rich feller. If it's only cash you are after.......

I don't think Bonam has said anything that would indicate he is a supremacist. I mean you can argue back and forth about whether or not racial tension against whites in the future is something to worry about, but the idea of it being possible or probable is not necessarily supremacy.

Well, Xul, that is only true to an extent. Look alot of terrorists have come to North America to get fine educations. Or even in Europe. You know, it may be in some cases that bad conditions can help fuel this, but it is naive to allow the blame to rest solely on that. And this oppression card gets abused. On top of that Canada is a pushover nation. The topic itself was about how Muslims are allowed to call for destruction of Israel, but any criticism of Muslims is now considered offensive. I remember reading a few years back about a Muslim student group at the U of T who held an on-campus meeting where they spread out a map of the "enemy"----Israel. So some Jewish students held a "Know Radical Islam" awareness meeting. You know just to discuss this issue, and there were many complaints of discrimination from the Muslim students. If we cannot even talk about a problem that is prevalent among many muslims (there is no denying it) while they are allowed to talk smack about the Western countries they are lucky to be living in, there is something very rotten in Denmark. To send foreign aid to countries is useless. You can pour a gajillion katrillion billion dollars into a country, but it won't necessarily help. They don't fly in with airplanes and drop it on the general population you know---which would also not be good, for obvious reasons. But if you send money to a corrupt nation with a corrupt government they are not going to feed mouths, they are going to fund the things they want.

This is patently false. Liberia and Myanmar still officially use the "un-scientific" inch. ...Now back to saving the endangered white people. I still use the un-scientific inch. I am 5'7". And I am about 150 pounds, there is not a kilogram in my body.

I believe Acts is a follow up to Luke. I think John was the latest gospel. The tradition is that John lived to be pretty old and was leader of the Church in Ephesus (don't quote me on that though). He was supposed to have written it when he was quite old. The interesting thing about John, is that I think they found a very early manuscript--- dated to the 1st Century I think.

I think you are wrong there, B. Max. Romans is an epistle from Paul.

They drive better on cannabis? Show me these studies. Seriously, do you believe this? Concentrating on the Green and NDP parties----this is what I don't get about the legalize crowd. I mean to want it legalized is one thing, and I can accept debate on that issue, but to make it your main voting issue, I mean c'mon. And you probably don't have much trouble smoking it anyway. My guess is, like tobacco, if legalized you would be paying a pretty penny for an already expensive herb. If you were to make an argument about relative harmlessness or personal freedom, I can accept that. But please, can the marijuana crowd stop telling me that it will boost our economy, all the worlds wars will end, people will drive better, athletes will perform astounding feats...all because of the miraculous herb.

ro woh tuoba gnilleps sdrow sdrawkcab? Is that allowed?

Look, he's warned me on some stuff, but on balance both he and Greg are good moderators. To quote the Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want, but if you try some time you just might find you get what you need". "Look," OK boss! I wasn't complaining, merely commenting on all the comments, throughout this posting, wrt Mr. Anthony and then jokin' around. Did you read through, I did? You like the Stones?! Wanna have some fun quoting lyrics, particularily Stones lyrics, LOVE'EM! hang on......one of my faves Salt of the Earth Lets drink to the hard working people Lets drink to the lowly of birth Raise your glass to the good and the evil Lets drink to the salt of the earth Say a prayer for the common foot soldier Spare a thought for his back breaking work Say a prayer for his wife and his children Who burn the fires and who still till the earth there was this great Stones concert, in which GnR got up and did this with the Stones, excellent! Yep the Stones sure are good "archetypes" for the salt of the earth, the epitome of average joe.

Even if you admit it's ridiculous Rue, and say it will be thrown out, something like this should not even be considered. For crying out loud if you have to go before the tribunal for something as little as that, these complaints could still become a real nuisance even if you do win the case. Hiring a lawyer, time off work, stress....etc etc. All this over a few relatively mild comments. And did anyone hear about the radical Imam they let on Vision TV? They apologized and said they regretted having him on and then let him on again the next day. Apparently you cant make mild comments about muslims, but its ok for them to call for the extermination of Jews. And what about the preacher in Alberta who was charged for his letter to a Red Deer editorial about homosexuality being taught to children in school. The charge was filed by a professor at the U of A who was not even gay. Homosexuals even came out to support the man's right to free speech. Why does the CHRC even consider these loons? I suppose it keeps the cash flowing for them. The more people whine about offense the longer they can exist. Crimes are crimes without hate legislation anyway. But still I mean half of these hate speech cases are not actual calls to violence against a particular group, just moral objections. I would think that the defintion of hate speech should only include speech that encourages a crime against the group, not just for speaking your mind about it.

Anyways Remiel someone argued that it was wrong to distinguish race because we are all a big human family. I dont dispute that we are a human family, but I realize for practical purposes reasonable distinctions can be made. So can there be mistakes, such as the one I made. But it doesnt matter to me about marrying anyone of a particular race or whatever if race doesnt exist. But if people have a decent idea of what they mean by race within relative terms, I dont see anything wrong with them making a concious decision not to intermarry. I don't think it is right to belittle someone for intermarrying either, but I can also respect the choice not to intermarry. Now people can argue that there are fuzzy lines between race or no one is really pure, etc etc. We've gone over this time and again in this thread over the past thirty some pages. If someone decides not to intermarry let them also decide what a white girl is. As long as they don't plan on belittling someone else or burning crosses on my lawn, I dont see anything wrong with it.

I must admit Remiel you did get me there. But nonetheless.... I was not looking for Obama's life story or to figure out who is ancestors were, i am trying to defend people who say they want to marry a white person and have white kids, and since it is their decision they get to decide what they consider white. Obama is a good example of how it would be hard to maintain the characteristics they wish to preserve. You used Obama because he looks black. And you notice it. I am not saying Obama is any less because of this, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with people who are not biracial either. So.....how does this affect you?

and your point is?

Of course there is nothing wrong with that observation. I may not actually say the words, but the realization hits me. A five year old could point it out to you. You see the same thing. But you cannot admit it. Seeing that does not mean you think less of someone. If you see someone walking down the street with a mangled face covered in burn marks do you pretend you didnt see it? There is no reason to feel guilty over the fact that you have eyeballs. When you see a black person you automatically notice it. This is not racism. When a black person sees me he sees right away that I am white. This is not offensive. This does not mean you are judging them. Look you could say the same thing about hair color or eye color and people would not be so touchy about it. Why are people so uptight about this? Hiding from this fact is not going to make the world a better place or stop discrimination. Because seeing distinction does not mean that one thinks one is better. remiel: Do these people not have a right to be accepted for who they are, and not for what people choose to see, or rather, choose not to see? Remiel, we have said time and again that we do not feel anyone is superior, so the fact that we see people and notice they are black does not mean we do not accept them for who they are. You can see it. Why do you think that seeing something means you don't accept people? Where does this logic come from? Its silly. If there was a man walking down the street with a long long beard, you would notice it right away. This does not mean that you are judging him by his beard. If he was wearing a bright pink shirt with a picture of 1000 smiling dancing elephants on it, you would see it. But seeing that does not mean you are judging him. Seeing is seeing. Children are very good indicators of unconditioned thought. Children do not necessarily have a preconceived notion of racism unless they are taught it, but they have eyes and they can see, they know what they see. A lot of white children, the first time they see a black child will ask their parents (because he looks different from any other child he has seen). The fact that the child can plainly see this does not mean he is basing his whole judgement of the person on this. But he can't help seeing it. I knew a girl of the pale variety who was travelling in Asia. She went to a small remote village (I cannot remember where) but apparently white people were quite a rarity there. People crowded around her, looked at her, wanted to touch her. They did not think she was evil or bad, but they noticed that hey-----this looks drastically different from the ordinary. This is not evil. They see it. Seeing it does not mean you are going to want to hurt it. You see it. I see it. Seeing distinction in things does not have to be a bad thing you know. Or else, we had might as well adopt the Star Trek uniform, eh comrade. Do you want me to prove that you see it? You would not have been able to ask me the question about Halle Berry and Obama if you had no idea that they were black. Thanks for the admission, Sir. You have helped me a great deal in making my point. Dont feel guilty about understanding this. It does not mean you think you are superior. It means you know what a black person is. What does the fact that a Sikh was murdered have to do with Kimmy having a blonde kid? Don't you have any power of distinction? Do you think everyone is a complete idiot? Kimmy is not trying to attack someone or judge someone because of their race. You people are getting ridiculously uptight over something simply because you think you are being noble by being overly painfully concerned about race, when no one is trying to hurt anyone or offend anyone. Have some sense, Sir. Look if you understand oneness, then you can move more fluently in the concept of distinction. If you really believe in things like oneness then you shoud have no problem with duality. The fact that this bothers you shows me you know nothing of it, but can only conceive of creating a oneness on the surface of things. The folly of communism.

Why are imaginary numbers used if they do not exist? If race is the cat, then what is the elephant? Because clearly, the elephant is not a cat. You are the one that seems to be confused, clinging to a disproven description of reality. Why is it such a hard concept for you to understand, that something that does not exist can be used to negative effect? Remember Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction? The state of being did not prevent them from being exploited by an unscupulous U.S. administration in order to justify an aggressive attack on another nation. You also seem to have a hard time understanding that if a someone living in a hostile nations attempts to use race to attack various populations, that they will also be wrong about the existence of race, but that the non-existence of race will not prevent them from using it to their advantage. Or, how about for example, we look to the non-existence of many things portrayed in fiction, and puzzle out how those fictional ideas sell books, despite their non-existence? OK now tell this to an Asian American group, or the National Association for The Advancement of Colored People. The fact that you are saying that this thing which does not exist apparently can be used for a negative effect, does not automatically mean that the understanding of the concept will make one use it in a negative fashion. Many things that either exist or do not exist, are on their own neither good nor evil, but can be used for both. Do you understand? So unless Scott is planning to attack another non-existent race or treat them in a ill manner with no other reason than the fact that they belong to another non-existent conceptualized race (you realize we have to type everything in ridiculous terms and perform mental gymnastics simply in an attempt to accomodate you), there is nothing to worry about. There is nothing wrong with Scott talking about preserving the non-existence of white people through the non-violent means of marrying a non-existent white woman and having kids who are merely conceptually white. You see how painstaking you make it, over this ridiculous battle to say that something does not exist. If Kimmy would like to have blonde children there are certain people of non-existent races with whom that would be impossible. Kimmy and Scott and I fully understand that THERE IS NOTHING SUPERIOR about blonde people or the non-existent white people. If there were low numbers of this completely and utterly superficial false premised group of non-existant pale individuals of the human family I would see nothing wrong with people taking the personal initiative to indulge in the non-violent act of marrying one of these pale members of the great human family in order to preserve their existence. Though some people may see this as pointless, something being pointless to one person does not make it bad. Not unlike the man who puts up a Christmas tree, while another man doesn't. The tree is superficial, but one man likes it, so he keeps it up. He fully understands that there is no Santa and nothing horrible will happen if he does not put the tree up. Can you understand this? Do you people, who need to make language exceedingly difficult for fear of offending people who make it their life's work to seek offense in every little thing, see how this works? Suppose that in some ridiculous futuristic period there arose some disputes between people of different eye colors? Blue eyes, and brown eyes. I have brown eyes. Now you could say that the idea of blue eyes and brown eyes could be used negatively. Does the fact that something can be used negatively mean we should abandon it? Would we have to deny the existence of different eye colors, or make a new eye colored contact that both would have to wear? Even though you say race does not exist can you understand who is black and white between ----- Bill Cosby and Tom Cruise. Now neither one is superior to the other. But for practical purposes can you understand that? You do understand that and there is nothing to be ashamed of. It is normal when you see a black person to notice that he is a black person. You all do. It does not mean that you think less of the man, but you notice it. I am sure it is the same with black people when they see a white person. There is nothing offensive in this. Can you understand this? When I see an asian person, I know that he is no less a person than I am, but I also immediately notice that he is Asian. It is very striking and prominent. This is not evil.

are you for real? I never worried about "rebelling against my parents", do you? The only sensitive spot you have hit is your own bias, and narrow stereotypical thinking. You seem to relish in hitting it over and over, narrow stereotypical thinking. With another stereotype the rebelling teenager, they don't all do it, ya know? Oh never mind. Anyway back to topic, a question for you sharkman, what with a prevelance, of this kind of stuff amongst 'christians' hookers, male and female both, pedophiles, lying, fraud, drug addicts. Thinking of this do you think dysfunctional persons are attracted to chrisitianity , in this case, and use it as a front, to show a 'christian' public face, and behave badly, while hiding behind there religion? There seems to be quite a few nasty preachers out and about, quite a few. So, does chrisitanity attract deviant, dysfunctional people, who can then hide behind religion??? Yes. It attracts nothing but deviant dysfinctional people----humans.

I understood what you said. Sorry, I did not made my expression clearly. I didn't mean you was the one who supposed me to refuse something. I chose "I was supposed to", in stead of "someone supposed me to" because I tried to avoid indicating a certain one. I am pro-Israel and so is Mike. Welcome to Canada, by the way, Xul.

Margrace I have only perused Freedominion a handful of times, and I am not a member there, so I don't know very much about them, but this statement of yours is irrelevant whether it is true or not. I will explain why. Freedominion is not a government entity. It is a private site. Therefore it is like comparing a school to your house. Now if someone comes into your house Margrace and starts saying things you don't like or bringing up topics you are not comfortable with or anything that you find distasteful, you have a right to ask them to leave. And if they don't leave you have a right to eject them. The person could be "banned" from your house but it is not taking away his right to free speech in the rest of the nation. You simply have the right to decide who you want in your house. As far as private matters are concerned this is a very important right. It means you don't have to invite people over to your house who you don't like. This is a good thing. Now in this case a woman is coming into to the private website (not unlike your house) and complaining about something very trivial that was said within because it offended her when the statements were not even about her. She calls the case before a tribunal. Legal action can be taken against the site. People may have to pay large fines. Now I don't know what happened to you at Freedominion's private site, but it would seem like you were banned for something or given warnings---ie If you want to stay in my house don't do this. Now what would be very interesting is to see what sort of totally excessive ridiculous legal action was taken against you by Freedominion. Did they send you before a tribunal? Were you fined by the moderators? Did Freedominion send out their police to have you arrested? Now look Margrace, a few weeks ago I was booted from an IRC chatroom because I questioned some girls who were bashing Paris Hilton and wishing that she would rot in jail as to why it is that so many people feel a need to even worry about her. I was kicked immediately. A few minutes later I was allowed back in the chat, and I complained to the girl that kicked me "Look all I said was....blah blah blah" and then I was promptly kicked again with the message (Just cuz I felt like it). I have been booted from many places..right wing, left wing, religious, etc. You are not the only one. But it is nothing to get all hot and bothered over. As to this particular chat room, I was allowed back in a third time. Now I could have complained about how it was ridiculous to ban a person for talking about Paris Hilton, but I figured "Well, if I want to talk about Paris I have many many venues to do it in. So maybe I will just go back in and talk about something else. It is her chat after all, and I am sure we can get along." And I went back in, forgot about Paris, and had a good time chatting, even with the lady that booted me. You see it's no big deal because first off its her business to kick whoever she wants in her private chatroom, and also I can still talk about Paris Hilton elsewhere. But if a "conservative" man cannot post a reasonable "conservative" question (like the one he posted as to why a certain group would support a certain other group) on a "conservative" forum, then where can he post it?

Why is race used as a tool if it doesn't exist? I think you lot are really trying to exploit the imprecision of the description to deny the existence of the object. If an elephant saunters through your flowerbed, and you call it a cat, the fact that you are wrong in calling it a cat doesn't negate the existence of the elephant. What makes this project worthwhile as a comedy is that neither you nor Kuzzad really know what it is you're trying to say, and so you're conceptually twisting and squirming and trying to justify one use of race while negating another, and claiming that race doesn't exist, but that it's used to exploit people. Yet the whole point of your argument seems to be that it won't be used to exploit people in the future or, alternatively, that it won't be used to exploit Whitey...just everyone else. Yep, because only white people are capable of racism apparently. The white people who don't exist that is.

Oh, why I was supposed to refuses to accept Israel? In my opinion, the best way of peace between Arabian and Israeli is that Arabian must accept Israel and then Israel return those Arabian territory. I have never said UN and others refused to recognize Israel. Most country in the world include some Arabian country such Egypt and Jordan have embassy in Israel. Even Israeli government has never deny that the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights are Arabian territory.The Sinai Peninsula has retured to Egypt when Egypt accept Israel and made peace with Israel. Israel have not returned the others because they are in the truce with other Arabian country not peace. As a country is in the war (truce is the rest form of a war), Israel of course can occupy enemy's territory for military advantage until peace established. The big poblem is in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem. Israel is unwilling return the West Bank because Eastern Jerusalem locate at the West Bank. Jerusalem is the holy city of both Jew and Muslim so this problem is too complex. No I never said you were supposed to refuse to accept Israel. I was defending you by saying that you never said any such thing.

I was a member of Rabble for a while and their spit drooling hatred of any conservative thought was actually scary. There were a few of us conservatives on that forum, and although the hate speech was ridiculous, as far as I know, no righties complained about human rights violations, although it was far worse than anything I've read on FD. But the part that gets me is that the offending content has not been revealed, at least to this point. And instead of investigating the person who apparently made the comments, they go after the forum. Your point about all being guilty for doing nothing is wrong. First, there is no grooming of discussion, it is simply the result of birds of a feather flocking together mostly having similar positions on issues of the day. Much like Rabble. And posters can't censor another's comments anymore than they can here. Even if you say they should go after the poster, his comments were no where near as graphic or foul mouthed as Posit's own. In fact I see little to be overly offended at in them. And the woman is not even muslim. If Posit wishes to promote the charge made by a woman who claims she was offended at something relatively mild which was not even said against her, he must surely understand that the same could be done to himself by people who actually are blonde or caucas when he said something which is a more clear example of racism.

Then what is the point of the topic?