jefferiah

speaking of which...i gotta go piss

In other words i am making an effort not to cater my actions simply to prove things. I have nothing to prove.

You like to burn ants? Oh, I didnt make that clear and re-reading my post its easy to see how it wouldnt make sense. Sometimes I have a hard time finding the right words to convey something. Maybe if I had some of your multisyllable words I could. And its true I have a rather small vocabulary. Hmm when I said it is not good to get upset over Prove Its.....I meant myself, not you.

Posit, its not a good practice to get upset over "PROVE ITs". If you do things to "prove it" then they are really not things that you would have wanted to do. So proving things sets people off course.

I am not fond of this post you know. But nonetheless Posit I think you are a smart person. I think most people are quite smart, you know. If I didn't think they were smart I wouldn't bother arguing with them, and I argue with a lot of people, Sir.

Lol...funny how the insults come when you know you lose. Been there before. No hard feelings, Pal. Its quite simple, Posit. You understand that when you bring in these hate laws anybody can claim offense over little words and sue for ridiculous amounts of money. In this case the complainant is charging an entire website where a man posted (nothing near as foul-mouthed as your rant) about muslims. The woman was not even muslim but she claimed offense. Only she is not charging the man, but the site you see. It would seem to be a very personal attack from a woman who is not only angry at this man but wishes to stick it to the conservative site. Now, Posit, I am not overly upset at your choice words. I know what anger is. Ive been there before and I will be there again. But you see that this could just as easily happen to you because you slipped one day on MLW. All the necessary elements are there. All it takes is "well I read this, and I began to cry, and it caused me severe emotional distress.blah blah" And in Canada they will allow you to place a nice dollar value on such a thing and get away with it for very little.

Youve got nothing do you.

Posit the fact that people do not wish to prove things to you may be a grace for you. Now you please tell me what Kimmy or I said about you that warranted that?

I don't have to prove anything. You know it.

They make cases on a lot less than that, Sir. And I think you are quite aware of that. Given whose racist ramblings? Kimmy's? What did she say that belittled another race?

Posit, I would think carefully before making a statement such as this. By self-regulation I assume you mean self-control. Do you mean the sort of self-control you were exercising when you wrote this post in another thread. Posit said and I quote: "I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her..... IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives. Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk...... The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place..... I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up." This is without a doubt the same sort of thing, if said about a person of another color or creed, that would earn him a date with the human rights council. Do you realize how many people overlooked this and did not bring action against you? Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."

Isnt that interesting how one man can hold a particular day to be holy, while another doesnt. And neither one is better than the other. Do you see how that works Kuzadd? Variation. You see. Distinction, yet respect. Interesting concept isn't it? Can you understand the idea of two people being in total disagreement over an issue yet not seeking to punish the other?

Examples of the Christian-Industrial Complex are easy to see. The Women of Faith conferences, for example, rake in more than $50-million per year and are part of a for-profit, publicly traded company. The Christian retail industry topped $4.5-billion last year. (A bit of context: $30 per month can support many pastors in developing countries. That means that Americans spend enough annually on "Jesus Junk" to support 250-thousand Third World pastors -- for 50 years!) Another example that played out last month is the controversy over the usage of the greeting “Merry Christmas” instead of the greeting “Happy Holidays.” Beginning in the 1990s, some conservative Christian groups have decided that the use of the phrase “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is a defeat of Christian values by the forces of political correctness. These groups include but are not limited to the Mississippi-based American Family Association and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal aid group. If you ask me, Christmas needs reforming, not defending. Indeed, the early church did not celebrate Christmas largely because they rightly predicted it would become what it has become, a materialistic bacchanal. In the 17th century, the Puritans attempted to eliminate the observance of Christmas altogether, believing it an unholy combination of the pagan and the “popish,” and because it resulted in much public drunkenness. For these reasons, in some New England towns, the observance of Christmas was actually prohibited by law. Indeed, such was America’s relationship with Christmas that Congress regularly met on December 25 until the 1850s.etc., etc.,etc., etc.," these are the opines of some christians, on the christian industrial complex. I am sure these couple of fellows, will just love the new toys! It seems not all christians are smitten with this new trend. So basically it is a collective term for Christian businesses which sell products on the free market which people can either choose to buy or ignore. So basically people have a choice to buy Christian products because these companies are marketing them. What is wrong with that Kuzadd? I dont want to buy the products and I am fine with them being available. Maybe you don't like them being richer than you. You are right about Christmas being a division point among Christians, but as the good book says, roughly quoted, "one fellow holds one day more important than another while the other fellow sees all days the same, and neither one is to judge the other".

I am not using distinction to justify exploitation. I am using it for practical purposes, to describe something you understand as fully well as I do. If someone wanted to preserve the trait of blondeness it would be higly unlikely that it would happen if that person married a black person. This does not mean this person dislikes black people. If a "black" person said "You know I would like to marry a black woman and have black children. No offense to white people, but I would like to try to preserve variety." Would this offend you? jefferiah, in my previous post, which, you did quote a section of, I must have pre-answered your above postulation here's what I said................. Ta-ta I have said, all i have to say WRT this topic It's been a blast! So then basically you should have no problem with Scott or Kimmy

What crime did he incite? Did he encourage anyone to commit a crime?

I am not using distinction to justify exploitation. I am using it for practical purposes, to describe something you understand as fully well as I do. If someone wanted to preserve the trait of blondeness it would be higly unlikely that it would happen if that person married a black person. This does not mean this person dislikes black people. If a "black" person said "You know I would like to marry a black woman and have black children. No offense to white people, but I would like to try to preserve variety." Would this offend you?

So, I dont understand what the problem is Kuzadd. Are the Biblical figures violence oriented? What is the deal here? Someone created them, Wal-Mart is testing them on the market to see if Christian parents might provide an ample market for the product. What is the Christian Industrial Complex? Please tell me more about them. I have never heard of them. Are they forcing Wal-Mart to test this product? Is Wal-Mart part of the Christian Industrial Complex? Are they going to make it mandatory that customers buy a Bible doll if they want to shop there?

Here is where I would like to correct your view Kuzadd. You say that making a distinction among races means one of the distinct varieties is superior to the other. That is wrong. Distinction are distinctions. Superiority is superiority. Two seperate entities. The problem is when one person adds the idea of superiority to his distinction. I can observe that what is meant by black people (which you fully understand) usually come from black parents. Have you ever noticed how two black people cannot procreate a white child? And how two white parents cannot procreate a black child? Does that not suggest to you the obvious that there are racial differences. Though maybe they are nothing more than superficial, the superficial does not hurt you either. So if race is meaningless to you, then you should have no problem if there are white people in the future. Unless you are racist. And you should have no problem with someone choosing to marry a white person. If a black person said the very same thing to me that he would like to marry a black person (meaning no disrespect to white people) I would fully understand that and respect that. From whence does this silly notion come that preserving one thing automatically means you want to harm another thing? That is utterly ridiculous.

I never said we weren't Kuzadd. But making distinctions within the family does not necessarily imply a feeling that one distinct group is superior to another. For instance, men and women are both equally human. Yet I can tell you that there is a difference. And you can distinguish between them. And Kuzadd, I have no doubt that you would be able to pick out what Scott means by a white girl to marry. No doubt in my mind. And if you know what that is, then you are capable of seeing the distinction as well. And if you insist that you can't you must be lying. Why do you keep saying over and over like a broken record that we are one human family? Do you think I dont understand that? You are so enlightened you transcended duality, why did you stop there and not also transcend oneness.

You are wrong. I can believe in the existence of black people within the human family, and they can in turn believe in white people's existence, and that does not require that either one thinks either is superior. I never said that you said anyone was trying to form a group. What I said was if you allow other colors to go so far as to form organized groups to define race, then why cant you simply allow Scott to talk about racism against whites and the status of whites in the future. Being able to make the distinction between red apples and green apples, though both are apples, does not imply the superiority of one over the other.

Free speech is not just about the right to speak, but to hear. The right to be informed and to hear the truth. This attack on FD rather than directly against Bill Whatcott is an attack on everyone's right to be informed. The so called human rights commissions have become in no small part the homosexual courts of justice, and their inquisitors the sentinel's human wrongs. http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=72214 Homosexual activists have set a well planned and well financed agenda that started in the 1960s and now includes not only tolerance of their lethal lifestyle but acceptance with privileges as a special class, as a minority group. The key target is our youth. This can be seen in the following written by “gay revolutionary” Mark Swift and printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of Gay Community News. These excerpts are reprinted from the Congressional Record: “We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable.... We shall raise vast, private armies...to defeat you. The family unit....will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory....All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.” I wonder B. Max if any human rights charges were ever brought against Mr. Swift for that article. Ok, I dont wonder, we all know there was nothing.

Is this the guy who was formerly a gay prostitute? He handed out leaflets or something calling homosexuality filthy. No one has to agree with that sentiment. But why do they have to sue him over it. If he were to promote the idea of violence against homosexuals and the like then it would be a hate crime. Expressing your own moral belief about something---i.e. calling it filthy... is not a crime, or at least it should not be. If they dont like they view they dont have to subscribe to it. Simple as that. Whether you believe something is immoral or not (filthy or not) should be a free choice and you should be free to profess it, as long as you dont encourage crimes against those people. I read somewhere that one fellow brought a charge against him because he read one of his leaflets and started crying and was hurt. My goodness, I could be a billionaire in Human Rights Cases by now. It's time to make clear the distinction between tolerance and condoning. Tolerance means that you cannot commit violent acts against people to stop them from doing something which you consider is immoral if it is not affecting your life. You must tolerate it. But tolerance does not mean you must also say that what everyone else does it good and acceptable. That would be governing someone's right to an opinion. People ought to be allowed to believe and profess that something is wrong. Now I wonder what human right was violated in this case. A right implies something that you are allowed to do. If the complainant is gay, did the defendant actually do anything to prevent him from being gay. Did he go into the man's house and prevent him from engaging in homosexual actions? No. So therefore no right was violated. The only right being violated is a man's right to express his opinion. Whether he expresses that opinion or not, it wont affect the other person's right to engage in what this man views as filthy.

So the voting system was designed by Bush supporters and they hacked in and changed votes. This is convenient for your argument, or would be if you actually had evidence. I could make claims like this as well. Its easy.

Just would like to point out to you Posit, that this is as crazy as saying there is "white culture". Similar cultural interests?

I never denied the basic historical facts of slavery and segregation. You clearly defined that there was one race, and to make a distinction creates an "US" and "THEM" mentality. Isn't that right? So basically you abohor defining race. Well if you condemn that then you condemn the NAACP since they are able to define colored people----that is unless you make an exception. And you did make an exception for them based on history and racism. Well slavery is over so the NAACP is not still in existence today in order to stop slavery. As it pertains to the present time it is functioning as a buffer against racism. So the exception for the NAACP (why they are able to define themselves as a group within the human family) is because they still experience racism as a group. And if there is such a thing as racism against white people then the exception exists for them also. And no one is trying to form a group Kuzadd. People are just trying to talk about white people. Scott mentioned in his original post that very idea of racism and the possibility of it escalating against white people. He did not say anything about attacking other races or that whites are superior. So how do we define white people? Read my post about the girl who was being bullied for being white. Someone obviously defined her as white. Are white people not allowed to speak? Now I am going to try to explain to you once again, slowly, about the word "exception". One does not have to actually use the word "exception" in order to have made one. When you make a rule or a moral standard such as....hmmm I dont know...saying that defining race is wrong because it creates an attitude of superiority, lets say. This is something you said. So basically you made a moral assessment that this in itself is wrong. I completely disagree but nonetheless....anyway. So you make this judgement. I point out to you that the NAACP and an Asian American group do the very same thing, and you say well yes but thats different. Now when people say "Oh yes, but thats different...."----this is what we call an exception. Do you see how that works Kuzadd? So although you did not actually use the word, I am not putting words in your mouth. Now the fact that I even went into the NAACP section of the argument shows that I was willing to indulge you. You see, because, before that we were arguing about the US and THEMs. And you said, that defining US and THEM makes US feel superior. I did not have to even give you an example of the NAACP. I should have dismissed you right there. Because that is utterly ridiculous, to say that having a concept of US and THEM automatically means you think US is better than THEM. We went over this. But I should have ignored you then. Rather than doing so I say to myself "Ok well even if he wants to pursue this ridiculous angle, I will just point out to him that he is completely fine about it when other people make the definition." As for keeping the race going by marrying white, thus far I have yet to hear Scott or Kimmy say they believe it is wrong to intermarry. They dont seem to be passing judgement on anyone else so their own decision should not cause any harm. If two black people said the exact same thing to me that Scott and Kimmy said I would not find it racist. Why do you? Why is it so offensive to you? I have no problem with marrying someone of another race, though as I said before Kuzadd I highly doubt I will ever get married. Nonetheless what difference would it make to me if Scott and Kimmy want to marry white as long as they are not telling me its wrong to marry an Asian if I so desire. So I ask you.....what is wrong with there being blonde people in the future? What is wrong with talking about it?