A Conversation About Race

[lictor616]

Could you provide some citations.

Apart from the fact that I doubt you even know what mtDNA is, please provide citations in actual scientific journals for this one. Some "expert" you managed to find after googling to justify your hatred of other people whose skin color you don't share is hardly what I would consider legitimate.

Jungle Cats (felis chaus) and Wildcats won't naturally breed with domestic cats, but Natural Hybridization can occur between very similar yet distinct species...

ligers for instance...

[lictor616]

Don't waste your time. He tried to foist on us that a fox can breed with a dog....

ah come on! there are reports of them, and you were the one saying that wolves couldn't interbreed with dogs... so...

[lictor616]

Apart from the fact that I doubt you even know what mtDNA is, please provide citations in actual scientific journals for this one. Some "expert" you managed to find after googling to justify your hatred of other people whose skin color you don't share is hardly what I would consider legitimate.

you clearly don't since you actually misunderstood Mayr's actual opinion on mtDNA markers to ascertain race.

I don't have the specific quote about how felines share more mtDNA with eachother then two humans but here's an equivalent argument:

this is James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521425379/

"Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33)

[GostHacked]

by puma I meant "wildcat"...

of course... both are of the EXACT SAME SPECIE einstein...

Genus Felis:

Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis bieti)

Domestic Cat (Felis catus)

Jungle Cat (Felis chaus)

Sand Cat (Felis margarita)

Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes)

Wild Cat (Felis silvestris)

Felis is the genus (they are of the same genus or parent group), catus and silvestris are different species. You might want to understand how this naming convention works before you post again.

Einstein.

Jungle Cats (felis chaus) and Wildcats won't naturally breed with domestic cats, but Natural Hybridization can occur between very similar yet distinct species...

Right, that means naturally you are pulling things out of your ass. Because naturally wildcats and housecats DO NOT naturally live or mingle with one another. Ligers are the result of human manipulation.

Ligers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Ligers borrow positive characteristics from both species. Ligers enjoy swimming which is a characteristic of tigers and are very sociable like lions. However ligers are often faced with a variety of health risks and other issues. Ligers only exist in captivity because lions and tigers live in different regions and would never breed voluntarily in the wild. Ligers are larger than both their parents which is usually dangerous to the pregnant tigress and may make it necessary for offspring to be delivered via caesarean section. The liger often has a very limited life span as well as birth defects and other mutations.

[M.Dancer]

ah come on! there are reports of them, and you were the one saying that wolves couldn't interbreed with dogs... so...

Sorry Ronald, I said no such thing. Apocryphal reports is not evidence.

Still waiting foryour citation on the south shore cops. If I have to wait longer I will assume you admit it is just another one in an endles series of your while lies.

[Moonlight Graham]

I mean that the state shouldn't have the right to regiment the way people interact with each other... I believe in complete freedom of association. I think that when left to themselves, people tend to "segregate" naturally...

And I reject the notion that diversity (of the kind we're asked to celebrate) is a strength.

I take what i say back. I'm not going to join in to any intelligent race debate with you. Surprisingly, you've been on your best behaviour in this thread and have stuck to mostly civil debate.

However, this thread can't exist in a bubble. Your other threads i've read prove to me clearly that you dislike black people. Maybe there are other races you've shown dislike for, but i haven't read all your posts. As much as you are now trying, you aren't fooling anyone. You are a raging racist. Deal with it. You are obsessed with race, to the point where you are trying here to create logical arguments to support your own twisted ideology.

Cut through all this wannabe-intellectual b.s. and what should be asked is what is the endgame to all these debates you have in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Even if you can prove that, say, black Africans are less intelligent in general than Caucasians, what does this accomplish? It remains a generalization. I know smart white people and moron white people, same goes for blacks, asians etc.. People should be judged on their individual merit, not pre-judged based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

BTW, in other posts you've also revealed yourself to be a homophobe.

So i'm not going to waste my time anymore with these discussions. Everyone else shouldn't bother either, save your time for debating more relevant issues.

[lictor616]

I take what i say back. I'm not going to join in to any intelligent race debate with you. Surprisingly, you've been on your best behaviour in this thread and have stuck to mostly civil debate.

However, this thread can't exist in a bubble. Your other threads i've read prove to me clearly that you dislike black people. Maybe there are other races you've shown dislike for, but i haven't read all your posts. As much as you are now trying, you aren't fooling anyone. You are a raging racist. Deal with it. You are obsessed with race, to the point where you are trying here to create logical arguments to support your own twisted ideology.

Cut through all this wannabe-intellectual b.s. and what should be asked is what is the endgame to all these debates you have in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Even if you can prove that, say, black Africans are less intelligent in general than Caucasians, what does this accomplish? It remains a generalization. I know smart white people and moron white people, same goes for blacks, asians etc.. People should be judged on their individual merit, not pre-judged based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

BTW, in other posts you've also revealed yourself to be a homophobe.

So i'm not going to waste my time anymore with these discussions. Everyone else shouldn't bother either, save your time for debating more relevant issues.

what if a thread showed that a person hated white peopl (such as most posts by tango and charter.rights... who refer to whites in the most contumelious terms) I've surveyed much of what they have to say and you've never said anything about it... I'm fascinated at how everyone perpetuates the double standard of only attacking supposed "white racists" while letting everyone else off the hook...

you,re merely cherry picking and making silly assumptions like "clearly that you dislike black people" ... what do you mean "clearly"? Clearly would be me stating a straightfoward opinion about blacks... which i didn't....

As cliché and pusillanamous as it may seem: I do have some blacks friends... (not that that really means anything) but please don't try to put the onus of this debate (as it is) on me personally... I don't think anonymous internet chatting is really a good medium for it... and either its pretty useless and besides the point.

Let me repeat also a fourth time:

"All of you completely FAIL in this debate because you barely dispute my central thesis: the descriptive idea that whites are discriminated against as second class citizens and that humans are naturally racists AND the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way. Instead, you spend your time disputing the idea that other races are inferior. That I may or may not think that is not essential to my argument. It's totally superfluous."

Edited September 16, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I take what i say back. I'm not going to join in to any intelligent race debate with you. Surprisingly, you've been on your best behaviour in this thread and have stuck to mostly civil debate.

However, this thread can't exist in a bubble. Your other threads i've read prove to me clearly that you dislike black people. Maybe there are other races you've shown dislike for, but i haven't read all your posts. As much as you are now trying, you aren't fooling anyone. You are a raging racist. Deal with it. You are obsessed with race, to the point where you are trying here to create logical arguments to support your own twisted ideology.

Cut through all this wannabe-intellectual b.s. and what should be asked is what is the endgame to all these debates you have in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Even if you can prove that, say, black Africans are less intelligent in general than Caucasians, what does this accomplish? It remains a generalization. I know smart white people and moron white people, same goes for blacks, asians etc.. People should be judged on their individual merit, not pre-judged based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

BTW, in other posts you've also revealed yourself to be a homophobe.

So i'm not going to waste my time anymore with these discussions. Everyone else shouldn't bother either, save your time for debating more relevant issues.

also what is a "homophobe" and how do I fit the bill?

[M.Dancer]

also what is a "homophobe" and how do I fit the bill?

I would guess that hetrosexual men are irrationally afraid of you.

[Rue]

I would guess that hetrosexual men are irrationally afraid of you.

Lol. All this time I thought it was only my wife I had irrational fear of.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

what if a thread showed that a person hated white peopl (such as most posts by tango and charter.rights... who refer to whites in the most contumelious terms)

Firstly if it can be shown a person hates "white" people simply because they are "white" then there would be

no difference then if it could be shown a person hates "blacks" simply because they are black, or

"gays" simply because they are gays or "Jews" simply because they are Jews, or "women" simply

because they are women or conservatives simply because they are conservative.

The group targetted is not relevant but what is relevant is:

1-the exercise of engaging and imposing negative generalizations,

characteristics and motives onto an entire group of people;

2-the engaging in the above to incite hatred, intolerance,discriminatory treatment

against the targetted group.

In your case people criticize you because you engage in 1 or 2. The group you target is incidental

to why people challenge you.

Secondly, if in fact someone else engages in the same exercises delineated in 1 and 2 as you do,

they would be criticized for the same thing. The fact that someone else was also engaging

in what you do above in 1 and 2 would not make it right.

The fact that many might join a mob with you to burn a cross doesn't make them any more

credible.

While Tango or Charter do not need my defence perhaps you would care to share the words you

accuse them of using that indicates they are racist towards caucasians. I would be curious

to know. I do not speak for either but I am not aware of either engaging in the kinds of references

you have.

I know Charter has been sarcastic* in some responses to some comments like all of us but hateful? Lol.

We all have. I am a little surprised about your comments about Tango. He may be a dirty commie** but

I would love to know how you arrived at the conclusion he was a racist.

*I was being sarcastic saying this

**I was being sarcastic saying this-of course he showers every day

[Rue]

As cliché and pusillanamous as it may seem: I do have some blacks friends... ."

Oh look we are sharing liberal tendencies. Well just so you know I hate all humans.

I prefer animals, in particular, dogs, cats, horses, whales, moose, deer, wolves,

birds, particularly ospreys, snowy owls, blue herons and vultures, badgers, wolverines,

weasels, foxes, bats, guerillas and dolphins, whales and manitees (sea cows).

Now get off my lawn before I shoot you*.

*I believe in gun control, I will only use a water hose

Edited September 16, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

Now its interesting Lictor because you came on this thread to:

1-argue there is such a thing as race defined by biology;

2-that blacks are inferior to whites in intelligence.

You then attempted to make a biological argument to define race which was shot down.

You even made a point to suggest it was unfair to suggest you were suggesting 1 and 2 above.

Now you suddenly switch topics unable to provide any scientific prove for the basis of biologically based

race to the following and I quote from your own words:

"All of you completely FAIL in this debate because you barely dispute my central thesis: the descriptive idea that whites are discriminated against as second class citizens and that humans are naturally racists AND the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way. Instead, you spend your time disputing the idea that other races are inferior. That I may or may not think that is not essential to my argument. It's totally superfluous."

The above establishes clearly you have now abandon the pretense of suggesting their is scientific

proof that races can be defined by biological characteristics and now you engage in subjective social

constructs or as you now call them "descriptive ideas".

You now share the "descriptive" idea that "whites are discriminated against as second class citizens".

You of course provide no objective basis for the above subjective perception you have. You expect "all of you"

to simply accept such an unsubstantiated subjective assumption as a given.

Then you go on to state "humans are naturally racist". Again you provide no objective basis for this

second subjective perception of yours.

Then you state the argument you made that blacks are of less intelligence is now suddenly off the table,

i.e., "That I may or may not think (blacks are inferior to whites)that, is not essential to my argument".

Well hear me loud and clear. Central to your thesis and in fact the essence of your thesis was and remains

that blacks are inferior to whites.

Your attempt now to try suddenly switch the focus away from the fact you have failed to

establish blacks are inferior to whites to the above subjective perceptions, fools no one.

All it shows in fact is you are now trying to be switch the focus but Lictor do you really think

"all of you" will let you off that easy? Think you can tap dance your way out of this one?

No, no, no. I am not finished stomping on your tap dancing feet.

Now Lictor, now that you have failed to provide a biological basis for race and have proven you

did not understand the difference between hereditary selection and/or genetics and or how and why

certain traits can be inherited and how that inheritance does not establish race but simply

a pattern of development and now that you have shown you don't know what clusters are

and why your attempt to suggest tracking rates of diseases in certain peoples does not

establish a biological race-lets deal with your subjective allegations as to white people

being discriminated against and all humans being racist as a norm.

In regards to your subjective perception that whites are being discriminated against, it is just thata subjective

assumption you make. It is not based on anything objective-simply your feelings and perceptions.

It is not up to me to disprove it. You contend it, you prove it. No you don't just whip out an allegation

and then claim it must be assumed to be true unless anyone can prove it wrong.

As you would say, nice try.

No this is not about you feeling entitled, i.e., believing everything you say is truth.

It is about establishing the basis of your thesis with objective corroborated evidence.

Either put up or shut up. Do show "all of you" the basis for your sweeping accusation that whites are being

discriminated against.

In regards to all humans being racist, while I would personally agree that all of us have biases and discriminate

because the human mind arbitrarily generalizes as part of its cognitive processes to organize that which it

takes in, I would also suggest some of us are a tad more flexible with our generalizations then you are, i.e.,

more willing to understand that these generalizations are not absolutes, and because they are generalizations

are necessarily imperfect or defective.

However all of that Lictor is subjective. Anyone can come on this forum and scream out-life has been unfair to me. Whether it has been unfair to you because you have pale skin or simply because you have been rude to people

or are ugly, fat, have body odour, bad breath, criminal tendencies, or are a genius ahead of your time misunderstood by the masses-is all subjective.

Sorry Lictor, life is such, that we do not define truth by how you feel, unfair as that may seem to you.

[Rue]

I want to be a negro....I like the sound of that word! Kind of bluesy..

Damn I understood that. Lol.

[Rue]

funny thing is that the author cited, Alan H Goodman, actually opines that the black race is a superior race and genetically better suited to a variety of survival conditions:

he was referenced in the eminently disposable and crypto black supremacist lie-rag named "Africa Resource"

He never suggested blacks were superior to whites. He suggested blacks are genetically better suited to

a variety of survival conditions, i.e., malaria.

Nice try misquoting him and trying to engage in subjective name calling to smeer his reputation without addressing what he in fact stated.

[Rue]

key sentence: "most medical geneticists and pharmacogeneticists

concede that skin colour and other race-identifying

features poorly correlate with the genetic variations"

first off as previously cited liberman et al 2001.. not MOST geneticists... actually a minority say that.... but actually that's another brazen misrepresentation... YOU DON'T ASCERTAIN RACE OR CLINE BASED on SINGULAR OR INDIVIDUAL SO CALLED RACE IDENTIFYING FEATURES...

skin color is not RACE ...

the entire article is mere confetti thrown in your face... it begins on an obvious misrepresentation of was race or cline is... and even dishonestly tells you that geneticists say this and that about it...

beware of academic fraudulence.

Wrong. The reference to most medical geneticists was not ever referenced to only Liberman and your

attempt to suggest Liberman is the only geneticist that has ever stated that skin colour

and race identifying features poorly coorelate with genetic variations is a deliberate misrepresentation

of what this article stated.

Your sudden epiphany that skin colour does not connotate race is heart warming Lictor but it is precisely

the kind of ccharacteristic you use to define race. The point of mentioning the above article was to

repudiate your contention race is defined by skin colour and physical features-quoting the very article to

suddenly suggest you never contended skin colour or physical features connotates race is amusing-you

use the very article that repudiates your racist contentions as now suddenly being what you agree with? This

coming from a man who refers to black children as apes? Right.

Lol. You then tell me to beware of academic fraudulence? In your case its not academic fraudulence, but I would suggest simply you once again denying what you contended and pretending you never contended it.

Your words Lictor, are left behind for anyone to read. Pretending you have never suggested in your posts that

race is defined by skin colour or nose shape or hair texture is hilarious.

Your entire thesis is based on your subjective perceptions of blacks and whites. You have yet to provide

one scientific standard to establish the race you define as "black" is in fact anything but your own subjectively

created construct.

I particularily enjoyed your lecture on how certain people with darker skin are not "blacks".

It once again proves your use of subjective categorization to define the black race.

All the references you used when trying to misrepresent the above article to suggest you have contended all along that skin colour does not define race were subjective constructs. Not one was based on a theory any geneticist

has stated.

This is why you will not provide any scientific studies to base your contentions and why you are left to repudiating he

articles I provided with subjective name calling-i.e., that they are "sociological" as if that establishes a basis

for criticism.

At best Lictor you have responded by calling the authors of the reports I provided "sociological"-a subjective name.

You may as well have simply responded they were poo heads in one short sentence. It would have saved us all a lot of space.

[GostHacked]

Rue, just wow.

4-6 posts in a row absolutely throwing him down to the floor. I love your posts, they are long sometimes, but there is so much gold in there, it is scary. Thanks for the posts!! I am not sure if he can come back from that. You summed up my feelings in those posts. I am not sure why I cannot put them into such words as you do.

Superb job!

[M.Dancer]

Rue, just wow.

4-6 posts in a row absolutely throwing him down to the floor. I love your posts, they are long sometimes, but there is so much gold in there, it is scary. Thanks for the posts!! I am not sure if he can come back from that. You summed up my feelings in those posts. I am not sure why I cannot put them into such words as you do.

Superb job!

Lictor is one of these teenagers who thinks he's smart and who simply copies stuff he's read in other racist sites and pastes it here hoping to appear like he knows what he babbling about.

He's neither smart nor convincing as Rue has shown.

And he is not particularly honest as I have shown.

[GostHacked]

Lictor is one of these teenagers who thinks he's smart and who simply copies stuff he's read in other racist sites and pastes it here hoping to appear like he knows what he babbling about.

He's neither smart nor convincing as Rue has shown.

And he is not particularly honest as I have shown.

Oh I agree. And you are totaly right about the quote-mining. Which boggles me because a great deal of his posts goes against his overall premise of the argument. I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that on more than one occassion, it's not a good feeling.

[lictor616]

He never suggested blacks were superior to whites. He suggested blacks are genetically better suited to

a variety of survival conditions, i.e., malaria.

Nice try misquoting him and trying to engage in subjective name calling to smeer his reputation without addressing what he in fact stated.

he also said that blacks are better immunized machines capable of withstanding disease and reacting better to it thanks to melanin.

Doesn't that tacitly mean he thinks blacks ARE superior? I mean if a race is shown to be better at warding off malaria and other infectious diseases and such a dangerous condition as skin cancer MUCH better then another race (whites say) isn't that an objectively superior trait?!

I mean how am I having to explain this?

[GostHacked]

he also said that blacks are better immunized machines capable of withstanding disease and reacting better to it thanks to melanin.

Maybe withstanding certain diseases. Myself I am white, and I get a cold maybe once every two years, and I have not had the flu in over 10 years. Most of my family is like this, does that give us an advantage, yes it does. Does it prove us superior? No, because in the end, negro and mongoloid people may have other advantages to make them equal and on par with the rest of humanity. I think this is where your logic and reasoning is failing.

Doesn't that tacitly mean he thinks blacks ARE superior? I mean if a race is shown to be better at warding off malaria and other infectious diseases and such a dangerous condition as skin cancer MUCH better then another race (whites say) isn't that an objectively superior trait?!

No it does not mean they are superior, and I am going to bet the author made no such concession either. It is an advantage in one area. Now if blacks had similar advantages in other areas of health/genetics, then you might be able to call them biologically superior, because they are disease resistant. However, I would suspect blacks also suffer from some diseases in which whites have some natural evolved defence system. But this is a great deal due to the geographical areas we were brought up in.

I mean how am I having to explain this?

We are still trying to figure out what you are really trying to say as well.

[lictor616]

Firstly if it can be shown a person hates "white" people simply because they are "white" then there would be

no difference then if it could be shown a person hates "blacks" simply because they are black, or

"gays" simply because they are gays or "Jews" simply because they are Jews, or "women" simply

because they are women or conservatives simply because they are conservative.

The group targetted is not relevant but what is relevant is:

1-the exercise of engaging and imposing negative generalizations,

characteristics and motives onto an entire group of people;

2-the engaging in the above to incite hatred, intolerance,discriminatory treatment

against the targetted group.

In your case people criticize you because you engage in 1 or 2. The group you target is incidental

to why people challenge you.

Secondly, if in fact someone else engages in the same exercises delineated in 1 and 2 as you do,

they would be criticized for the same thing. The fact that someone else was also engaging

in what you do above in 1 and 2 would not make it right.

The fact that many might join a mob with you to burn a cross doesn't make them any more

credible.

While Tango or Charter do not need my defence perhaps you would care to share the words you

accuse them of using that indicates they are racist towards caucasians. I would be curious

to know. I do not speak for either but I am not aware of either engaging in the kinds of references

you have.

I know Charter has been sarcastic* in some responses to some comments like all of us but hateful? Lol.

We all have. I am a little surprised about your comments about Tango. He may be a dirty commie** but

I would love to know how you arrived at the conclusion he was a racist.

*I was being sarcastic saying this

**I was being sarcastic saying this-of course he showers every day

Lets look at your standards for judging as far as group hatred is concerned.

1-the exercise of engaging and imposing negative generalizations,

characteristics and motives onto an entire group of people;

2-the engaging in the above to incite hatred, intolerance,discriminatory treatment

against the targetted group.

First obviously you are forced to concede that these are consistently applied towards people of my political inclination, scarcely one post goes by without someone making a nazi reference or insulting me and in effect attributing all manner of negative generalizations… boo hoo you will say but it’s a fact, my dissent for the policy of enforced diversity and “egalitarianism” does in fact draw considerable flak from the left side. Not that I am complaining about such things, nor did I not expect such mudslinging, but its fact: most leftists are intolerant and very hateful of opinions not in ideological lockstep with left wing liberal politics. There is one form of diversity you will not tolerate—and that is a diversity of opinion.

Yes, to look at the countless and thoughtless denunciations and insults, refusal to stick to the topic and endless ad hominem nagging (M.dancer being a prime example), you people aren’t really interested in the debate so much as SHUTTING IT DOWN. Despite a few creditable attempts by you Rue (which turned out to be duds since most of the authors you cited actually believed in a concept of race and some of them even attributed different faculties to them!)

But the biggest clue to where people stand in these issues when you do the exercise of “putting the shoe on the other foot”… I try to invert the races when accusations of racism are hatred are made: for instance the Courtenay hatecrime incident (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14477)

A hotly debated and unanimously deplored occurrence here in these pages.

Yet when I offered an example of a similar crime with the races inverted: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14890

Everyone was conspicuously absent from the debate… all the people who were in the white on black “hatecrime” who were beating their breasts and shrieking and spitting out of control were ALL absent in this page… I scarcely was able to collect one reply!

I find this to be clear and unmistakable evidence of racial prejudice and double standards and yes racism if we have any reasonable definition of any of those things.

And again, all of routinely carry out this same kind of Orwellian double think… you all are very selective in what you call racist and hateful… and this is usually along racial lines.

Now another baneful failing of yours is the uncritical acceptance of multiculturalism (which is another aspect I often oppose). Multiculturalism does indeed commit transgression 1 & 2 of your list:

Multiculturalism implies that race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation have an unavoidable effect on the way people think and on what kind of the values they hold.

Multiculturalism is anti-individualistic in the sense that it expects each individual to consent with the perceptions, thoughts, and judgments of his group in order for his own insights, thoughts, and judgments to be legitimate. Multiculturalism attempts to replace individual rights by a perverted form of collectivism by assuming that a person's identity and values chiefly derived solely from biology, and that counts is not what a person does or think or says as a person, but the members of his biological group currently do or did centuries ago. It follows that collective guilt replaces individual responsibility – a person must assume the responsibility for acts committed by his ancestors and pay for these acts ad infinitam.

One of the many so-called benefits of the multiculturalist collectivist view of things is the introduction of multiculturalism as a counter to racism, negative stereotyping and discrimination. It would appear however that this multiculturalism is simply stereotyping and racism cloaked in politically correct clothing. The multiculturalists after all hold that race, creed and gender should be a central factor in educational and other policy decisions. And because it is wreathed in racism, Multiculturalism is turning North America into collections of separatist (ethnic, racial, religious, gender etc) groups each competing for power with the others. It is nothing but the sheerest absurdity to believe that performing reverse racism and stereotyping Group 1 to compensate Groups 2 and 3, in order to correct some real or imagined racism, can avoid the proliferation of racist thinking. People are individuals and expect to be treated as such, they cannot be dealt with merely as ciphers. The answer must lie in complete racial and gender blindness. Stereotypes, Racism and sexism will endure as long as the collectivist mentality based on these phenomenon is not eliminated. Using racism and stereotypes to counter stereotypes and racism engages in the very principle of stereotyping and discrimination and ought not to be considered an answer to them.

But of course, none of you will condemn any transgression committed by minority persons, nor will you condemn the very real racist institutions in our country that are racist. You’ve already made this patently clear.

Edited September 16, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

Yet when I offered an example of a similar crime with the races inverted: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14890

I can assume then your story about the southshore police not arresting a black drug dealer in a stolen car was a lie?

Thanks for clearing that up and being so straightforward about your lack of honesty.

[lictor616]

Maybe withstanding certain diseases. Myself I am white, and I get a cold maybe once every two years, and I have not had the flu in over 10 years. Most of my family is like this, does that give us an advantage, yes it does. Does it prove us superior? No, because in the end, negro and mongoloid people may have other advantages to make them equal and on par with the rest of humanity. I think this is where your logic and reasoning is failing.

No it does not mean they are superior, and I am going to bet the author made no such concession either. It is an advantage in one area. Now if blacks had similar advantages in other areas of health/genetics, then you might be able to call them biologically superior, because they are disease resistant. However, I would suspect blacks also suffer from some diseases in which whites have some natural evolved defence system. But this is a great deal due to the geographical areas we were brought up in.

We are still trying to figure out what you are really trying to say as well.

hmmmmmmmm.... oh ... ouch...

I think you felt the weakness of that argument ghosthacked... but of course you will never admit to it...

yes yes ... Some genetic factors may make us objectively superior... but um not really "because in the end, negro and mongoloid people may have other advantages to make them equal and on par with the rest of humanity"...

How silly is that statement? how indicting is that!? You're relying on some faith or perhaps the divine power of some unnamed deity to sort of round up or "even out" (!) the strengths and weakness and give strengths to some where other have weaknesses... but of course (as you assure us we're all precisely to the tenth decimal equal at the end of the day)...

RUBBISH... ABSOLUTE HOGWASH... NONSENSE ON STILTS...

So how do you figure this works then?

Blacks have greater resilience to serious illnesses such as bacterial infections, skin cancer and some may even have superior running abilities (kenyans) but um, errr, we whites make up for it.... which (of course) in the end makes us equal how? how do we make up for it? A few more IQ points? Blue eyes?

tell me specifically how this works because I find this quite a devastating indictment on your part... because saying that actually means you agree with the racists. You just wiped out your own point! Namely that we're equal and that races don't have any difference in ability or capacity...

Edited September 16, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I can assume then your story about the southshore police not arresting a black drug dealer in a stolen car was a lie?

Thanks for clearing that up and being so straightforward about your lack of honesty.

its was part of a legislative project to end "profilage raciale"

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...es=2&File=4

4.8 "Soutenir les trav aux du comité de vigie en matière de prévention des tensions interculturelles"

I can,t find any dispatch that corroborates it neither can I trace back the LCN news segment about it... i'm, sorry dancer

I concede my failure here.