jefferiah

NO WHERE did I say that "only whites can be racist". Please post a link and direct quotation. Obviously you persist in twisting words, that are not mine. Nor reading what I actually say. DO NOT attribute statements to me, which I have not made. Ah well if you say that not only whites can be racist, and you admit that there can be racism against whites then you have no reason to oppose a couple white guys talking about the status of white people as they are defined by people who dont like them.

I don't think the fact that Wal-Mart has decided to carry this is proof that there's a market for it. Wal-Mart also carried the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" game, which proved to be about as popular as dealcoholized beer or Conrad Black Fan Club memberships. -k No it doesnt prove it. Often times you can't know whether there is a market for something until it is marketed. Wal-Mart is a private company, not a faction of the Canadian Government so the religious content is of no concern to anyone. All they have to do is not buy it, the same way I am not going to buy it. By a market for it, I mean that there is a Christian market and maybe they will buy it and maybe they wont. I think probably most Christians would think it was "out there" as well. But as for the product itself, if it fails, it would not be the first product to do so, religion related or not. If you read the title of the topic it says "Wal-Mart to test Bible Action Figures". So they are simply testing the product to see if there is a market for it among Christians. Anyhow I wonder what this has to do with the Christian Industrial Complex? I dont even know what that is, do you? No wait I am a secret cardholding member of the Christian Industrial Complex and we have filled those toys with an airborne autosuggestion serum. Soon everyone will be a believer. Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yes, it would seem to me to be a pretty obvious thing as well. But nonetheless, lets apply the benefit of the doubt to Figleaf's case. OK Figleaf, lets say you had no idea that this would be inappropriate. Now perhaps they could have given you a warning. But as Geoffrey points out it seems a pretty common sense thing. Now so you were kicked without a chance to defend yourself. Was the time hard? How was the chain gang out there? You were allowed to come back in. I have had similar things happen to me. Sometimes the judgement is swift and there is no argument. But the judgement was not harsh and you are allowed back in. How much skin is off your back? See you are alive and ok and allowed back in. Now you can say to yourself "OK....apparently they dont like the racy photos here." You are a good poster, I am sure they are not overly outraged at you. But if you keep making a stink over it you will probably make things worse for yourself. It is not the end of the world. I have been kicked from places and I have come back arguing alot more vehemently than you have. And the end result is you end up losing your second chance. And time has showed me that I was often in the wrong. All you have to do is accept that you are back in and you will be fine.

I quite agree Kimmy. I would think most Christians would find this distasteful themselves. But also I dont think it is comparable to the Karl Marx doll, or anything. As someone pointed out it is a free market and no one has to buy a Moses action figure if they dont want. I dont plan on buying someone soon. But I find it funny that Kuzadd makes mention of some Christian Industrial Complex. So while telling people who are making this out to be some great brainwashing scheme that they are blowing it out of proportion, at the same time I would also encourage Christians to take God more seriously than an action figure.

The organization exists because there was a need for coloured people to be protected from racism, you've yet to demonstrate that need as it pertains to white people. Ah...Why should Scott or Kimmy have to prove that there is racism to anyone? First off they were not proposing to start a group. Kimmy just wants Kimmyettes. And Scott mentioned the possibility of there being racism against whites in the future because of the possibility of becoming a minority. He is simply discussing a possibility and people are jumping all over him for it. There is no one trying to start a group. The group was mentioned because everyone was debating about whether or not there is such a thing as race. Many people proposed the relativity argument, that race is not really definable. So we proposed the common sense argument that if there were a police description of a caucasian thief, or an asian thief, everyone would understand it. Kuzadd said that mankind is one race. I quite agree with him on that point, and I am not trying to say that one race is superior or that purity is better than being hybrid. As they will both readily point out, everyone is a hybrid. He said that any attempts to classify people by race imply a belief that you are superior. I argued this point with him, and he could not see that it is possible to make distinctions between things without believing one has more inherent worth than the other. He denied that possibility and said it automatically creates an "US" and "THEM" mentality, and that believing in distinctions means you think "US" is superior. People pointed out to him that while red apples and green apples are still both apples, for the practical purposes of consumer it is important to distinguish. And neither one is morally or universally better than the other, but we can make the distinction. And I tried to point out to him that he can make that distinction and would probably have no trouble picking out what Scott means by a white girl. They avoided answering that one. So he basically kept throwing the point that if you can make a distinction, then it is a bad thing. It creates controversy. So I says to him and others, "Look, if that is the case then you must also make the same case against NAACP because they must have some sort of definite idea of what colored people are." Do you understand that I was not complaining about the NAACP? I was pointing out that they were by their own standards. Then I said go get em boys----you know daring em to take their crusade against the NAACP---which I know they will not do? The fact that the NAACP existed because of racism does not change the fact that they have defined colored people. (And keep in mind this parallel was not used as a reason to promote a white group, but simply to allow Scott to bring up the existence of white people without people jumping down his throat over it.) In effect I am saying, look these people start groups based on the idea of race, but it is a crime for Scott to mention the white race or even consider the status of it, possible extinction...etc. Now you could keep pushing the limits and say "Well, those groups have a right to define colored because they were victims of racism and oppression and they were defined as that by their oppressors." Well I pointed out a case of racism against whites. Cybercoma, do you believe that only whites are capable of racism and discrimination? I would say that idea in itself is racist. You can argue that whites never had to go through slavery. Granted-but slavery is not an issue today. Segregation is not an issue today--so those groups are existing "today" because of discrimination. Slavery is immaterial since no colored person alive today was a slave, and no white person alive today can be blamed for causing it. So, as it pertains to the actual moment, these groups survive as a protection against racism. And are you going to try to argue that there is no such thing as racism against whites? And if there is, is it too much to ask that you allow someone to simply talk about it and the possibility of it getting worse, etc etc. I mean you allow other colors to make actual organized groups over the issue. Scott is just talking.

So its simple Kuzadd. If one race can have organizations which seek to protect them from racism, then you cant say that white people can't. Either you allow em all, or you ban them all. I never said anything good or bad about the NAACP, I simply pointed out that by your own defintion up to that point in the argument, the NAACP was guilty of the same things you accused Scott of.....i.e. defining what race is, seeking to protect one particular race, etc.

In an earlier post Kuzadd, I said that you seemed to have the idea that "all whites are racists". I think I had that wrong. It would seem that the idea is "only whites can be racist".

Ah, yes I was the one who brought it up, and you never even mentioned that. But I was quite aware of that fact when I was writing that it was you who implicated them, only you refuse to see why. It was you who said it was wrong for people to define themselves in a protective group based on color of skin. So if that is wrong, then in your own words, not mine you have made the judgement against the NAACP. Do you see how that works? Do you understand when I brought up the NAACP I was saying that if you wish to use the logic you are using against Scott, then you must apply it evenly evenly across the board. Then you say that well there is an exception for the NAACP because of oppression and racism. So in order to say that it is wrong for caucasians to think about protecting themselves you must then prove that there is no such thing as racism against Caucasians. That it is not necessary for Caucasians to protect themselves because there is no possibility of there ever being a racist person from any other race than the white guys. Furthermore Scott never even proposed starting some kind of group, all he did was suggest a possible future situation in which there may be discrimination against whites. He never proposed a white group at all.

ooooops. my mistake. I didnt realize we were on a year old thread here. Sorry Rue. And I should have realized from the topic.

Ribiero was traded a year ago.

Certainly not Drea. Questioning is a good thing. I have not checked out the site, so I dont know much about it really. But are the views of the questioners always correct? Is Bush always wrong? And by what standard are you judging that people who frequent this website are the good Americans?

Good point. I knew you were going to say that anyway. But I would think that since the abstinence ring had something to do with an established religious organization the school could easily make the distinction between it and someone who comes to school with a pierced nose and a fist full of diamonds and says "uhhh well...I am wearing this as part of my faith in the uhmmmm Puckerwitzer Faith. ....yes thats it, I am a devotee of Puckerwitzer." Now even at this you and I can still argue back and forth, about what makes the ring legit. So I won't bother, and I have to admit that this case could be a muddy example.

Have you ever been married? Lol....no, you are pretty witty sometimes, M Dancer. That's good. Sometimes you are just the fellow to take the serious spin off the thread and get people out of a rut.

And if you read that thread you will find that despite that comment I was not making a case against the action figures, rather I defended them, because I am willing to allow people to do things which I consider silly as long as they aren't hurting me. To explain what I mean more clearly....why should we make God into something society wants him to be or that kids will think is cool?

Yes and graven images are expressly forbidden in the Bible. I am not saying that I think an action figure is heretical (because I know people are not going to worship it) but it is sort of silly to turn Moses into GI Joe to make him appealing.

Well personally I dont think the school should ban jewellery at all. And I know what you are saying. But I would not have allowed Kirpans anyway, because they are closer to the Colt than the ring is? What possible harm could the ring do?

I knew a woman a few years ago whose 9 year old daughter was experiencing alot of trouble at school. Actually, to be exact, it was not her biological daugher, but the daughter of the man she had married. The 9 year old girl went to a school in an area that was primarily populated with natives, and most of the kids at school were native. She was bullied everyday at school by other kids and called "white girl" and the like. The mother of this girl told me how she became very concerned about what was happening when she noticed alot of writing on her daughter school books in her daughter's hand. Stuff like "I want to die.", "I wish I was dead.", "Everyone hates me". She called the school to complain about it, but she told me that the principal, a native woman, simply brushed her off as a paranoid white woman. The mother began to keep her daughter out of school because she was afraid of what her daughter might do to herself if she were to face anymore of this treatment. She was going to get her daughter transferred to another school, but after a week people came to her house to say that she cannot keep her daughter out of school, and that she must continue going to school until she is transferred. I am not sure of all the details concerning this part. Anyhow her daughter was forced to return to school and soon enough the woman had to make another complaint to the school about the bullying her daughter "the white girl" was receiving, and this time angry at the principal she went to to the school to argue with her in person. Remember that this woman had married the girl's father. The woman told me you should have seen the look on the principals face when she saw that I was Native too.

Now if ScottSA wants to preserve caucasians (whatever he sees as caucasian) how is this targetting another group. You seem to be going around in circles on this point, where over and over people have to keep saying preservation of one thing is not necessarily targetting of another thing.

And if you wish to use the existence of racism as an exception for groups like the NAACP you must prove that only whites can be racist and that no one can be racist against whites. Or else they can claim the same exception.

I never said anything to suggest that they cant. You did. All I said was if you suggest that it is wrong for people to make groups based on the protection of people who belong to a "non-existant" race then you must apply that policy evenly all across the board.

You see Mike I am of the same opinion as you are that having state run programs left and right and special laws to engineer society are not beneficial. I feel that in the end people who promote such things create a treadmill for everyone, so that we have to keep up in order to keep it.

In fact if you had bothered to try to understand what I am saying, you would have seen that I was building up to the question of the Nanny State? When I said "treadmills" I was getting to the question of whether outsourcing responsiblities to the state has actually made life any easier. Or will public daycare actually make life easier? I am not trying to tweak laws.

mike i never said it was possible to solve the problem. you are jumping to conclusions again. but it is not a bad direction in which to look. you see capricorn said we should create population with our own birth rates and so i point out that people are not going to want to do this for various reasons. that means those reasons are obstacles, so i am simply pointing that out. if you want to compell people to have the standard old fashioned family unit how would you go about it. this is not a liberal ideal either. it is a conservative one. but you cant enforce it, so i am asking in what ways you could possible compell people of free will toward his proposed solution. i never said his solution was the right one. i am interested in how he would go about it.

To explain it again for clarity. When someone said "Who's right it is it to decide what is an important religious object for someone?" You said "What if someone claims the Colt 45 is important?" Everyone understand why this would be ridiculous. What possible problem could you have with the ring?

Do you agree with a dress code that bans all jewelry? Do you think any ring should be allowed? If so then argue that point. Do not waste time claiming that this girl's ring deserves special treatment because she thinks it has religious significance for her. If you have a dress code that makes exceptions for religious symbols then it should only include well established and widely recognized symbols. Allowing people to make up what ever religious symbol they feel like defeats the purpose of having a dress code. The dress code bans jewellery. So therefore it is not a thing about religion because they ban all rings? This is your argument. The thing is, that the dress code makes exceptions in cases of religion, so that it is ok for people of other faiths to wear Kirpans and the like in spite of the rule. And as for your Colt 45 argument which makes the point that people should be allowed to judge what is an acceptable religious symbol, I have to agree. People do have to make decisions about what is a reasonable claim of an important religious object for someone. Now how does an abstinence ring stack up next to the Colt. Isnt the Kirpan closer?