wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The global labour rate? Excuse me? The global labour rate is about 6 cents an hour, isn't it? Canada does not operate on a "global labour rate" whatever the hell that is.You know, if all immigrants were White and European we would at least be able to discuss the economic and cultural pros and cons of immigrantion without the polically correct squealing like old ladies looking at a dirty movie. "Oh my God! Someone is criticising immigrants! And that's like, like criticizing brown people! Aaaaahhgggh! Atack! Attack! We must defend the brown people for they're too child-like and ignorant to defend themselves!" The fact is that you PC zealots do not have a single, solitary logical economic or demographic argument which defends the current numbers and types of immigrants. The only reason you defend it is because most immigrants are brown people and that is the one and only factor governing your opposition to any talk or changes to immiigration. Your ignorant, paternalistic bigotry towards visible minorities makes you want to shut down any debate to "protect" them. If you weren't such bigots you'd be able to logically discuss immigration without regard to skin pigmentation, and without getting emotional and insulting anyone you deem to be questioning the wisdom of allowing immigration from "minorites" you see as being under your noble, self-appointed protection. first you're quoting me and I never wrote that quote 2nd the bigotry is in your post Jamaicans and Haitians have been coming here in large numbers for almost 40 years now. Would you care to detail the invaluable cultural and economic assistance they have provided to Canada? and other posters as well whenever they mention, black, brown, coloured immigrants...if race, nationality or religion is not the issue why mention them at all? because they're an issue for those who object not to immigration but to where immigrants originate"Jamaicans and Haitians" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kwon Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 We should cut off negroid/Australoid immigration. period. Genetics have revealed that negroid have genes that make the smell bad, have violent urges, etc, etc. Statistics also revealed that negroid's average mental capacity nears a mentally retarded white person's mental capacity. Similar is the case for Australoid, like Australia's aborigines. In turn, let's prioritize mongoloid and Caucasoid immigration. Those two races have shown to be capable of inventing, thinking, etc, etc. While native africans, australians, and americans lived in huts (and still do), mongoloids and caucasoids lived in castles, invented firearms, invented written languages, traded, and achieved scientific milestones. It is beyond me why Canada would accept negroids and australoids for immigration when science, history, and statistics clear confirm that those groups are not meant to be functional members of civilized societies. Before you go off saying "racists are stupid" and other nonsense, my IQ is in the 99th percentile, so chances are, I am more intelligent than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 If you can't back up an argument don't make it. I never made that argument... now what is your ethnic groups great and lasting contribution to our culture? I'll wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 first you're quoting me and I never wrote that quote No, I very clearly was not quoting you. Learn to read. 2nd the bigotry is in your post Noting that Jamaican and Haitian immigrants have not exactly been great success stories in Canada is not bigotry. It is judging those groups as I would any others, regardless of their skin pigmentation. and other posters as well whenever they mention, black, brown, coloured immigrants...if race, nationality or religion is not the issue why mention them at all? Because they are marked failures as an immigrant population. We would be well-advised to turn away from nations and areas which produce a very high failure rate among immigrants. That's judgement, not bigotry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I never made that argument... Excuse me then. I should have said "If you have no ability to back up an argument with logic or facts you just look silly by even trying. now what is your ethnic groups great and lasting contribution to our culture? I'll wait... My ethnic group's contribution to this country is not in question. I'm Scottish. We built the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 We should cut off negroid/Australoid immigration. period.Genetics have revealed that negroid have genes that make the smell bad, have violent urges, etc, etc. Statistics also revealed that negroid's average mental capacity nears a mentally retarded white person's mental capacity. Similar is the case for Australoid, like Australia's aborigines. In turn, let's prioritize mongoloid and Caucasoid immigration. Those two races have shown to be capable of inventing, thinking, etc, etc. While native africans, australians, and americans lived in huts (and still do), mongoloids and caucasoids lived in castles, invented firearms, invented written languages, traded, and achieved scientific milestones. It is beyond me why Canada would accept negroids and australoids for immigration when science, history, and statistics clear confirm that those groups are not meant to be functional members of civilized societies. Before you go off saying "racists are stupid" and other nonsense, my IQ is in the 99th percentile, so chances are, I am more intelligent than you. ewww so smart but you didn't know IQ is actually irrelevant to what knowledge you actually have...and you obviously don't have any in genetics or history... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Argus, You know, if all immigrants were White and European we would at least be able to discuss the economic and cultural pros and cons of immigrantion without the polically correct squealing like old ladies looking at a dirty movie. "Oh my God! Someone is criticising immigrants! And that's like, like criticizing brown people! Aaaaahhgggh! Atack! Attack! We must defend the brown people for they're too child-like and ignorant to defend themselves!"The fact is that you PC zealots do not have a single, solitary logical economic or demographic argument which defends the current numbers and types of immigrants. The only reason you defend it is because most immigrants are brown people and that is the one and only factor governing your opposition to any talk or changes to immiigration. Your ignorant, paternalistic bigotry towards visible minorities makes you want to shut down any debate to "protect" them. If you weren't such bigots you'd be able to logically discuss immigration without regard to skin pigmentation, and without getting emotional and insulting anyone you deem to be questioning the wisdom of allowing immigration from "minorites" you see as being under your noble, self-appointed protection. I'm sorry but you're jumping the gun with your ad hominem argument here. I'm asking for facts, not squealing and nobody is providing adequate evidence. After your initial paragraph, you descended into name-calling which is not like you. I'm asking for evidence is all, and as I said not getting any. You seem to be the one getting emotional here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 wyly, ewww so smart but you didn't know IQ is actually irrelevant to what knowledge you actually have...and you obviously don't have any in genetics or history... IQ measures quickness of mind, but not wisdom or lack of ignorance. An intellectual possesses a truly open mind, and that is more valuable than being quick or clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kwon Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) some countries with little support go from nothing to rich, like Germany, China, Japan, Korea, and other pacific rim countries. Take a look at Korea. 50 years ago, it was the poorest country in the world. poorer than Ethiopia. Now, it has the world's 11th largest economy, and dominates parts of the electronic market. Take a look at Germany, China, Japan. All devastated by WWII, started again from scratch. Now, they are world powers. On the contrary, Haiti, once the richest country in the western hemisphere, is now the poorest. Why is it that you ask? The Negroids have driven out their masters of the country, and everything started to fail since then. Same applies to African countries, South Africa had 30% GDP decrease since the fall of Apartheid. Zimbabwe, a country that used to produce enough food to feed all of Africa under white control of farms and government, is actually receiving from others now. Oh, did I tell you about the direct correlation between # of negroids and crime? lol How can people think that races that once dominated the world are equal to that of unevolved people that still live in mudhuts?? Edited October 7, 2009 by Thomas Kwon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 My ethnic group's contribution to this country is not in question. I'm Scottish. We built the place. and I would argue not...I could credit the French the English, western Canada owes more to Germans Ukrainians and Americans than the Scots...Scottish culture plays no part in my daily Canadian life...I did go to Caribbean fest this summer met some Jamaicans but i didn't see a Scottish contingent there...no offense to scots but Canada is a sum of it's parts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ba1614 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 No, I very clearly was not quoting you. Learn to read.Noting that Jamaican and Haitian immigrants have not exactly been great success stories in Canada is not bigotry. It is judging those groups as I would any others, regardless of their skin pigmentation. Because they are marked failures as an immigrant population. We would be well-advised to turn away from nations and areas which produce a very high failure rate among immigrants. That's judgement, not bigotry. He pretty much proved the following paragraph you wrote for ya : "You know, if all immigrants were White and European we would at least be able to discuss the economic and cultural pros and cons of immigrantion without the polically correct squealing like old ladies looking at a dirty movie. "Oh my God! Someone is criticising immigrants! And that's like, like criticizing brown people! Aaaaahhgggh! Atack! Attack! We must defend the brown people for they're too child-like and ignorant to defend themselves!"" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 On the contrary, Haiti, once the richest country in the western hemisphere, is now the poorest. Why is it that you ask? The Negroids have driven out their masters of the country, and everything started to fail since then. Same applies to African countries, South Africa had 30% GDP decrease since the fall of Apartheid. Zimbabwe, a country that used to produce enough food to feed all of Africa under white control of farms and government, is actually receiving from others now. Oh, did I tell you about the direct correlation between # of negroids and crime? lol really weak knowledge of history...native Americans had a written language were very advanced in mathematics and astronomy as well built very impressive cities... oh did I tell you of the correlation of poverty and crime? lol How can people think that races that once dominated the world are equal to that of unevolved people that still live in mudhuts??most of china still live in what by canadian standards are huts unfit for human habitation, so by your logic chinese are very inferior to Canadians???and for someone of superior IQ how is it you are unaware there is no such thing as race???? race is an invented social classification not a scientific one...we are all one specie.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kwon Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 really weak knowledge of history...native Americans had a written language were very advanced in mathematics and astronomy as well built very impressive cities...oh did I tell you of the correlation of poverty and crime? lol most of china still live in what by canadian standards are huts unfit for human habitation, so by your logic chinese are very inferior to Canadians??? and for someone of superior IQ how is it you are unaware there is no such thing as race???? race is an invented social classification not a scientific one...we are all one specie.... then how in the world are scientists able to determine people's "race" just from their DNA's? If it's a social construct, that shouldn't be possible. West Virginia. Impoverished region. White people. Low crime. I apologize about Native Americans. I didn't mean like Mayans, or those people that built pyramids, etc, etc. I meant like the kind of natives in Canada that seem to be obsessed with worshipping nature, getting high, being lazy, and living in huts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 really weak knowledge of history...native Americans had a written language were very advanced in mathematics and astronomy as well built very impressive cities... Unfortunately no examples have survived. No stories, no ledgers....no cities... Just glyphs carved in rock that the anscetors of those who etched them cannot read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 then how in the world are scientists able to determine people's "race" just from their DNA's?If it's a social construct, that shouldn't be possible. they don't determine race, they determine genetic linkage/spread/drift, race is not a scientific classification...you, I and aborigines share common genetics, our differences are superficial and very insignificant we are all the same family... I have blond hair blue eyes my sister has red hair and green eyes are we different races? we are the same...are there races of dogs? no dogs are dogs in fact dogs are still wolves...West Virginia. Impoverished region. White people. Low crime.I apologize about Native Americans. I didn't mean like Mayans, or those people that built pyramids, etc, etc. I meant like the kind of natives in Canada that seem to be obsessed with worshipping nature, getting high, being lazy, and living in huts. Mayans and Canadian natives are genetically related...Mayans were farmers, farming allows building of structures and an accumulation of goods...Canadian natives of the plains were nomadic, nomads carry with them the minimum for survival and doesn't allow for building permanent structures,...Mayans developed calendars and astronomy because that is important for farming, nomads develop very strong bond to their environment because it's crucial to survival ...nomadic or farming is decided by environment, neither group is smarter than the other they each develop unique technology that suits their needs/environment... you have no respect for survival knowledge required in an a inhospitable environment like Australia or Canada the knowledge needed is equal to anything you may possess...it only differs in content... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) some countries with little support go from nothing to rich, like Germany, China, Japan, Korea, and other pacific rim countries. Huh? Take a look at Korea. 50 years ago, it was the poorest country in the world. poorer than Ethiopia. Now, it has the world's 11th largest economy, and dominates parts of the electronic market. It's called massive foreign investment, in particular US investment. Take a look at Germany, China, Japan. All devastated by WWII, started again from scratch. Now, they are world powers. Germany (or more properly West Germany) and Japan were essentially rebuilt by the United States. China, of course, received massive amounts of technical support from the USSR until they had a falling out. None of these countries "did it on their own". Quite the opposite. Japan might have been a really good example during the Meiji period, but of course the militarists destroyed all of that when they went to war against the US. On the contrary, Haiti, once the richest country in the western hemisphere, is now the poorest. Why is it that you ask? I'd love to see how you can claim that Haiti was ever the richest country. Maybe when Spanish gold being stolen from Mesoamerica was flowing through. The Negroids have driven out their masters of the country, and everything started to fail since then. Same applies to African countries, South Africa had 30% GDP decrease since the fall of Apartheid. Zimbabwe, a country that used to produce enough food to feed all of Africa under white control of farms and government, is actually receiving from others now. Oh, did I tell you about the direct correlation between # of negroids and crime? lol Okay, you're either are worthless racist or a trolll. One thing is for sure, you don't know anything about history. How can people think that races that once dominated the world are equal to that of unevolved people that still live in mudhuts?? Up until the Romans enforced culture on Europeans, most of them lived in similar circumstances. Now go away, bigot. Edited October 7, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Unfortunately no examples have survived. No stories, no ledgers....no cities...which means what??? civilizations get destroyed, the Spanish were very thorough destroying the Mayan civilization as well as the Aztec and Inca's...they were reduced to what we see today by colonialism, these were thriving sophisticated civilizations...Just glyphs carved in rock that the anscetors of those who etched them cannot read surprisingly they are read, my daughter can read some... can you read ancient greek? roman? not surprising neither can many Greeks or Italians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 which means what??? It means they didn't have a written language. They had a graven form of pictographs that was made exclusively for the gods and priests. No Gilgamesh, no Iliad, no Ramayana....no stories that could be written down surprisingly they are read, my daughter can read some... No your daughter can't read it. She can interpret it to the best of her ability, but no one can read it. You would be unable to transcribe James Joyce in Mayan hieroglyphs can you read ancient greek? roman? not surprising neither can many Greeks or Italians... I've never heard of ancient roman..is it like Latin? Ancient Greek? A literate modern greek can read the Odessy. Was there a point for that brain fart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 then how in the world are scientists able to determine people's "race" just from their DNA's?If it's a social construct, that shouldn't be possible. West Virginia. Impoverished region. White people. Low crime. I apologize about Native Americans. I didn't mean like Mayans, or those people that built pyramids, etc, etc. I meant like the kind of natives in Canada that seem to be obsessed with worshipping nature, getting high, being lazy, and living in huts. I would love to see the study that show they can biologically determine race, to bad it doesn't exsist. As for the the natives in Canada "that seem to be obsessed with worshipping nature, getting high, being lazy, and living in huts." let's see how long you would live out on the plains with you 99th percentile IQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) I'm asking for evidence is all, and as I said not getting any. You seem to be the one getting emotional here. You didn't ask for evidence. You stated that opposition to immigration was due to racism. You might not consider that name-alling, but I certainly do. Edited October 7, 2009 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I would love to see the study that show they can biologically determine race, to bad it doesn't exsist. That doesn't seem like a stretch...lets say that X% of the living in Japan have a similar DNA finger print....and so on.... While you might be able to pinpoint on DNA alone that someone is likely to be for example a Hutu...to classify and lump Hutu with Somalis, Ethiopians, Sudanese and liberians and arbitrarily calling them negros is quite another thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 and I would argue not...I could credit the French the English, Yes, you can argue the moon is made of blue cheese and built by mice - but not coherently, but then you rarely bother with logic. My point is no one (sane) questions the contribution of Scots to Canada. But that is neither here nor there. I was questioning the statement that ALL nationalities have contributed and no one has thus far shown me of the mighty economic contributions of Jamaicans and Haitians. I did go to Caribbean fest this summer met some Jamaicans but i didn't see a Scottish contingent there... Perhaps we were all working that day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Once again, it's NOT race! It's culture! Often a particular culture may be made up mostly of members of the same race but that really isn't relevant. Raise a Jamaican child in a Scottish family and you will get a child of Scottish, not island, culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) That doesn't seem like a stretch...lets say that X% of the living in Japan have a similar DNA finger print....and so on....While you might be able to pinpoint on DNA alone that someone is likely to be for example a Hutu...to classify and lump Hutu with Somalis, Ethiopians, Sudanese and liberians and arbitrarily calling them negros is quite another thing. But what if you find a Hutu who doesn't have that marker does that mean he's not Hutu? there are to many problems with trying to find a biological definition for race that's why there isn't one. Edited October 7, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 But what if you find a Hutu who doesn't have that marker does that mean he's not Hutu? there are to many problems with trying to find a biological definition for race that's why there isn't one. No ....don't misunderstand me...DNA can be used to ID nationality....race is to broad....even so, anomolies will be rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.