jefferiah

Although I think the toys would be ridiculous gifts for children, I dont think your post makes an accurate analogy. Unless the toys are geared toward causing death to muslims then I dont see a connection. Making an action figure of Noah is a silly way to preserve faith. But there is no implied political connection either, Cybercoma. They are made for parents who want their kids to have Biblical toys, and as long as those toys are not promoting warfare against someone else what is the problem. I won't buy them. But they are on the shelves because there is a market for them. If there were prison camp toys you would have a case to have them removed.

Is one trait more important than another? Is skin color a more important trait than hair color?

Do you see Posit? And later you argue that making fun of Kimmy being a blonde is not the same as making fun of someone because they are brown. I won't make any assertion on the matter, but you already have. You contradicted yourself on this point. In a recent post you made it known that race is really nothing more than physical traits and so is blonde hair. If they are one and the same, then by defintion, making fun of someone for being blonde is not only childish and out of place in the argument, but it is also equal to making fun of someone because of their skin color.

Posit no one said that it was more important than another. I dont want a white group. No one even proposed the idea. The thing is for practical purposes we do have labels. That does not necessarily mean you view one person as being better than another. It also means that I cant argue with Scott referring to whites or else I would have to argue with the NAACP's existence. The attack you made was the rant about white people and the sizes of their members and such things. I really don't take any offense to it, and I am not reporting you for it. But if you made the same statements in a post about Asians it would be called racism. Guyser I am not worried about whites particularly, but nonetheless your argument is still silly, because once again using the same logic you are using against Scott with this University Study you must also evenly apply that logic to the NAACP, who seem to have a pretty good idea of what colored people are. Now, if you argue that the NAACP is in a special position because of the existence of racism then you must also prove that there is no such thing as racism against white people. And there is. I have experienced it myself. It did not concern me or scare me very much, but the attitude that other races are more special and that it is ok for them to protect themselves does concern me.

Now this Cybercoma, is something I pretty much agree with. I mean I am not at all that concerned but then again if someone is how is that wrong. As long as they are not viewing whites as superior and plotting to destroy other races then what is the difference in making a preventetive measure to protect your own against racism when other groups do the exact same thing.

Posit you are going off in another direction again. I was not targetting black groups. Kuzadd did with his own logic. If it is not ok for one group to have a group, then it is not ok for another. If it is ok for one group to have a group, then you have to allow another. As long as neither of those groups are promoting the destruction of the other. Right? You go off about how I should make a raicst thread about this or that. You are the ones who said it was not ok to form a group based on color, and when I point out that others exist you call me racist for it as if I was insulting them. Remember Posit you are the only one here who has made attacks against people of another skin color, so when it comes to racist threads you might as well lead the way.

I would be careful of your own words, Posit. Thus far you are the only one who has made a rant against another race.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. There are physical differences in all kinds of people. There are hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, age, physical ability, strength, mouth shape, boob shape, even buttocks. If you want to separate people, why not just focus on women with big butts and tell they they are inferior because of their posterior? There is no such thing as "race" scientifically or otherwise. To create a separation based on skin colour is perverse and racist. "....then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP." I believe no such thing. In order to restore equality against generations of prejudice and oppression it is sometimes necessary to tip the scales in the opposite direction. Hard lines must be drawn in many cases to counter the kind of institutional racism you promote and to prevent vocal opposition by minority. (Take away an argument from a racist and he doesn't know what to say. A Truth) However, there is a difference that I do recognize. Intelligence. And from my knowledge and experience, those who promote and subscribe to this type of racism are on the low end of the intelligence scale. Here's Canada's resident racist making a fool of himself. See how intelligent Paul Fromm is.... Paul Fromm speaking..... Ah so basically it is ok for one race which doesnt exist to define itself as a group but not for another.

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir. Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no. jefferiah "If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-" those are your exact words. as long as there is racism and division, there will be 'groups', so unless people have a huge attitude change, there will be, groups of the oppressed banding together to empower themselves. as stated simple cause and effect. lol Kuzadd. Those are my exact words and they prove my point and not yours. Read the words "you would not have tried to put me off". Does that say that I was put off....or that I think you were trying? Well. Which is it?

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir. Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no. It would not insult me in the least, for as far as you know I could be black. You seem to have trouble understanding very basic arguments and take the meaning implied as something else. What I meant was that it seemed as if you were saying that because you assumed it would upset me. Do you understand, Kuzadd?

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir. Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no.

While that may be true M Dancer, I see nothing wrong with people trying as long as they are not planning to destroy other races. Window dressing is part of life. The difference is whether you impose values about another persons window dressing. You are allowed to decorate your house as you please, right. All superficialities. But so what, within reason these things can be enjoyed. Now if someone tries to preserve an old house it may be that God will send a tornado and it will be destroyed. Either way, no one knows, so what is wrong with putting in an effort. And if it fails then they will move on. Simple as that.

ah good point Kuzadd...you didnt I must concede. But I think you are also fully aware of what it is he is calling you out on. Don't play games. You said that Scott only likes the idea of race because it makes ok when "THEY" are dying. That was an unfair conclusion based on absolutely nothing. I dont think this thread is the place to argue it anymore really.

Kuzadd this is an interesting post because I think it begins to reflect more and more what you dont understand about what I am trying to say, and this is a good thing because it will help me see where I need to explain it differently. Read carefully what I am saying here. First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. Yes caucasians and asians are people, but for all practical purposes the idea of race is beneficial. The green and red apple are both apples, but if you ask me to hand you that apple, and I say which one the green or the red-----well dont you see where I am going with this. No one is implying the superiority of one apple over another. Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype. I assume by that last comment that you think I would be offended if my ancestors were black, which once again shows you are not understanding most of what I am saying. My ancestors may have been black, I really have no idea whether they were or not. How do you know I am not black? What difference would it make if I was---a rational argument is a rational argument? I would still say I see nothing wrong with Scott wanting to marry a white woman. By the way I would like to point out to you, that even though I mentioned the NAACP, it was you and your crowd who condemned them. Do you understand why? jefferiah: you make way to many assumptions. "First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. " actually, you ASSUME,I am, If I wanted to say that about yoyu I would have. Since I didn't don't assume you know what I think. "Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype. more twisted baloney ( see I just say it) what I said was here's what I wrote verbatim: "The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour." I am quite clear, these associations for coloured people, became necessary, because "white" people have demonstrated a racist streak, stemming from a belief in white superiority. This is a simple FACT OF HISTORY, DO YOU DENY THIS? Shall we go over the whole black slavery issue, blacks as second class citizens, kukluxklan etc., These are undeniable instances of white people demonstrating an alleged superiority because of the colour of ones skin. So while I am not promulgating the theory of "all whites are racist pigs", as you so foolishly and irrationally espouse, the simple fact is the historical facts are there, to back up the contention I have made. again ""The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour." If you wish to have a rational discourse, keep to the facts and history and your sensationalist claptrap out of it. Your comments wrt scottsa, are pointless, he can marry whomever he wants, and I would hope, the criteria for that is love, committment, shared values, common goals and not skin colour. If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-which doesnt work. You said that because you thought it would bother me, and you also made the same assumption about Scott. You said people like Scott only want there to be races so it will ease his guilt when the Thems are getting killed. It does not matter if you claim you are using him as an archetype it still amounts to the same thing. You see Scott as a representative of "those" people who think "that" way. Don't play games. You cant lump white people in with all white people because of history. That again is racist. So like you have a double standard here. You must clear it up Kuzadd. Either it is ok for people to have racial groups like NAACP, or it isnt. If it is ok, then you cannot condemn Scott for simply mentioning the idea. Or else it is only ok for other races, because white people are all racist and cant be trusted. So make up your mind. Which is it?

Another interesting thing is that the only person here who has actually said anything to belittle another race is Posit, and none of these One Race people are saying anything about that. Now I was not offended over what Posit said, because I generally dont take offense to these kinds of things, but I would suggest to the watchdogs who look for something to be offended over that they must also vehemently argue with Posit for what he said.

Well, let's take a look at how poor Kuzzad is oppressed here. 5 minutes ago I got a warning to stop "belittling people", with a specific reference to a post in which I told kuzzad to "shutup." Why did I tell him to shutup? Well, because he said this to me in the previous post: "In a nutshell, it is necessary for people such as scottsa, to believe, this nonsense, so when the "THEMS" are being killed scottsa, can feel ok with that." So I am warned for telling Kuzzad to "shutup", although apparently it's just peachy for him to accuse me of plotting genocide. Go figure. scottsa: I did not accuse you of "plotting genocide". How preposterous, really and dramatic. I was merely using you to demonstrate an archetype, there was actually no need to tell me to "shut-up" and then continue on with your insults. I do hope you understand the concept of archetype? In the quotation I said, it is "necessary for people SUCH AS scottsa" in my opinion you are the archetype for a specific type of person that holds a specific belief, that I can use as a reference to make my point wrt: why the types of beliefs , such as yours are held. It is unfortunate you chose to represent such an archetype, particularily one , you appear to feel insulted? for being associated with, but, that is what you CHOOSE to demonstrate, repeatedly on this forum, is it not? That is ridiculous backpedalling. YOu are saying you didnt make this accusation against him and then you are saying that he is a representative of those who hold this belief----that is basically saying the same thing. He is not representing this "archetype", you just say he is.

Sure, Rue, but what about Kimmy wanting to have Kimmyettes. Is she hiding from intolerance or trying to preserve something? Also your use of in-breeding seems to be a bit of a barb, though I dont know for sure. If it is a barb it would be more relevant if all caucasians lived in one village in the hills. If you feel this way then you must also argue as vehemently against a black man who says he would like to marry a black girl.

Kuzadd this is an interesting post because I think it begins to reflect more and more what you dont understand about what I am trying to say, and this is a good thing because it will help me see where I need to explain it differently. Read carefully what I am saying here. First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. Yes caucasians and asians are people, but for all practical purposes the idea of race is beneficial. The green and red apple are both apples, but if you ask me to hand you that apple, and I say which one the green or the red-----well dont you see where I am going with this. No one is implying the superiority of one apple over another. Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype. I assume by that last comment that you think I would be offended if my ancestors were black, which once again shows you are not understanding most of what I am saying. My ancestors may have been black, I really have no idea whether they were or not. How do you know I am not black? What difference would it make if I was---a rational argument is a rational argument? I would still say I see nothing wrong with Scott wanting to marry a white woman. By the way I would like to point out to you, that even though I mentioned the NAACP, it was you and your crowd who condemned them. Do you understand why?

Most of us "smarter" people also know that when the police call for a look out of an Asian male with blond hair wearing a plaid jacket and spandex tights that all they are doing is describing physical details about the person. It has nothing to do with race anymore than blonds are a race or spandex-clad shorts makes someone gay. As I said earlier, it is a superficial separation of people used by lesser intelligent people trying to assert their racist feelings of inferiority. Now genetically speaking, a couple of years ago scientists discovered that we share 99% of our DNA with fruit flies and earth worms, as well. I have no doubt who some of your grandparents were based on your DNA......... posit, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that people have said that despite these physical differences, they do not believe one race is better than the other. if you think that seperating people by race automatically means that there is some sort of superficial idea of superiority going on then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP.

Xul is here Mike. Maybe if you explain your beliefs reasonably to him about alot of things he might see some reason in them. He could be a conservative voter perhaps. His post may have had a few incorrect things in it, but most of it was cold and detached from personal opinion on the matter. IE UN, US refused....he never commented on whether he believed they should have refused. Present the case to him. I am not saying pander to him. You dont have to snuggle him and treat him special, but if reasoning with him, rather than simply casting him aside with "you will fit in with the other lefties", could possibly make him into a Harper supporter what do you have to lose?

I know what you meant by he will fit in with the rest of Canada. But to be fair all Xul did was say....ok This is how I understand what is going on over there, and then he ends his post with, Right? So all you have to do Mike instead of saying "you will fit in with the rest of the lefties" is explain to him why you feel he is wrong and why you and I support Israel. Mike it seems as if you would be happy if he didn't fit in as a Canadian. You condemn him because he doesn't have your opinion but you haven't even explained it to him yet. You would rather keep him on the other side. Another thing I notice. re-reading his post is that he says the UN and others refused to recognize Israel...etc. He never once said he refuses to accept Israel. Actually his post didnt show much opinion at all.

You folks are very quick to chatter, and call racism to anything disagreeing with your restricted perspective. I did post a topic a while back on “blondes” and was looking for a consistency on the maintenance of their success. Well, it is obvious they are, how to say the least, denied to be genius. Well, it is a personal thing to be a Caucasian I gather. To recap we want an ancestry that produces a symmetry that reaches as far as to the wit. ? RB, Kuzadd, anyone else who does not believe in race. You are using the non-existence of race as your logic by which to condemn ScottSA for wanting to marry a white woman, or Kimmy. If it is a horrible crime which warrants your bellyaching about it, then by the same logic you must also bellyache of over the existence of National Association for The Advancement of Colored People. By attempting to advance the lives of colored people this organization is indirectly making the admission that they believe there are colored people and that the colored people are "US". Kuzadd, this is a prime example of an Us and Them mentality, and so you should not limit your condemnation to Scott and Kimmy. Be ambitious and get all the people who form a group based around the idea of race or color of skin. The Asian American Association. These people must have some definition of what an Asian is. Go get em Kuzadd. Go get em RB. They are creating division in the one race.

Look despite all your claims about there being no race, most of us have a pretty good idea what is meant by an asian, or a black person, or a caucasian. How do I know I have a good idea? Try this experiment yourself. Using the internet find a picture of Rodney Dangerfield and a picture of actress Qi Shu. Print the pictures out. Survey a sample of a hundred people and ask them which one looks Asian to them. Ask a hundred people. "Who is the white guy--Russell Crowe or Denzel Washington?" Seriously Kuzadd do you think that because people can make a distinction that it necessarily means they view one of those distinct objects, people, etc as being superior? That would mean that all the white people who say Russell Crowe is the white guy must think whites are superior, and that all the black people who say Russell Crowe is the white guy must think blacks are superior.

Someone could claim that their Colt 44 has religious signficance to them or that wearing flip flops and a bikini is showing respect for the 'sun god'. Should the school simply take their word? It would defeat the purpose of the school uniform policy. If you think schools should not have a uniform policy then argue that point. The ring is clearly not a widely accepted christian symbol and is justifiably banned under the school's uniform policy. And the relationship between an "abstinence" ring and a Colt 45 is?" Perhaps there is a closer relationship between the Colt and the Kirpan.

So, you never use the pronouns "Us" and "Them"? And if you do does it make you think you are better than "THEM"? That is ridiculous. In an eastern philosophical discourse it may go well, but "us" and "them" have practical purposes. And the distinction between the two (which I am sure you make several times a day because they are both very commonly used words) does not necessarily imply that one believes "Us" is superior. The reason ScottSa told you to shutup was because you ignored his arguments, in which he has stated time and time again, that he does not feel "Us" is better than "Them", and it was a bit off-topic and shows you understood little of what he was saying when you accuse him of making the division between race as a way to ease the pain of "Them" dying. In his posts about preserving the white race he never said anything about getting rid of the others. When you make a statement like that about a person who has not said anything to that effect, you are doing so without any evidence. And when you make an assertion about someone with a lack of evidence it is a prejudgement.