Caucasians

[kuzadd]

[

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.

actually jefferiah, again nowhere did I say there was an EXCEPTION for the NAACP, I said, unless you acknowledge that groups such as the NAACP arose, because of prejudice and oppression, as is historically factual, there is nothing worth discussing with you.

And still you deny basic historical facts, therfore, no use to discussion

Edited July 21, 2007 by kuzadd

[jefferiah]

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".

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.

[kuzadd]

Now if there is no such things as race, why are you, in the same post as you deny it, affirming the existence of race and of oppression by one to another? If you're right in the first assertion and race doesn't exist, then you're clearly wrong in the second assertion, and if you're right in the second assertion then you can't be right in the first.

And what does "wrt" mean?

wrt: means 'with regards to'

To answer the above nonsense, I AM OF THE OPINION and SCIENCE BACKS ME UP, there is one race and one race only!

Why am I acknowledging the existence of the oppression of ONE GROUP OF HUMANS, over another GROUP OF HUMANS???

Because it exists, it is factual, has been recorded, it is historically accurate.

WHY, because people, believe, misguidedly that certain physical characteristics, give them the "moral " superiority, gives them the right, to subject other human beings to oppressive and abusive behaviour.

"If you're right in the first assertion and race doesn't exist, then you're clearly wrong in the second assertion, and if you're right in the second assertion then you can't be right in the first."

I am right in the first assertion and I am correct in the second assertion also.

I can be right in both and I cannot help it appears, you cannot follow complex arguements.

Edited July 21, 2007 by kuzadd

[jefferiah]

actually jefferiah, again nowhere did I say there was an EXCEPTION for the NAACP, I said, unless you acknowledge that groups such as the NAACP arose, because of prejudice and oppression, as is historically factual, there is nothing worth discussing with you.

And still you deny basic historical facts, therfore, no use to discussion

I never denied the basic historical facts of slavery and segregation. You clearly defined that there was one race, and to make a distinction creates an "US" and "THEM" mentality. Isn't that right? So basically you abohor defining race. Well if you condemn that then you condemn the NAACP since they are able to define colored people----that is unless you make an exception. And you did make an exception for them based on history and racism. Well slavery is over so the NAACP is not still in existence today in order to stop slavery. As it pertains to the present time it is functioning as a buffer against racism. So the exception for the NAACP (why they are able to define themselves as a group within the human family) is because they still experience racism as a group. And if there is such a thing as racism against white people then the exception exists for them also. And no one is trying to form a group Kuzadd. People are just trying to talk about white people. Scott mentioned in his original post that very idea of racism and the possibility of it escalating against white people. He did not say anything about attacking other races or that whites are superior. So how do we define white people? Read my post about the girl who was being bullied for being white. Someone obviously defined her as white. Are white people not allowed to speak?

Now I am going to try to explain to you once again, slowly, about the word "exception". One does not have to actually use the word "exception" in order to have made one. When you make a rule or a moral standard such as....hmmm I dont know...saying that defining race is wrong because it creates an attitude of superiority, lets say. This is something you said. So basically you made a moral assessment that this in itself is wrong. I completely disagree but nonetheless....anyway. So you make this judgement. I point out to you that the NAACP and an Asian American group do the very same thing, and you say well yes but thats different. Now when people say "Oh yes, but thats different...."----this is what we call an exception. Do you see how that works Kuzadd? So although you did not actually use the word, I am not putting words in your mouth.

Now the fact that I even went into the NAACP section of the argument shows that I was willing to indulge you. You see, because, before that we were arguing about the US and THEMs. And you said, that defining US and THEM makes US feel superior. I did not have to even give you an example of the NAACP. I should have dismissed you right there. Because that is utterly ridiculous, to say that having a concept of US and THEM automatically means you think US is better than THEM. We went over this. But I should have ignored you then. Rather than doing so I say to myself "Ok well even if he wants to pursue this ridiculous angle, I will just point out to him that he is completely fine about it when other people make the definition."

As for keeping the race going by marrying white, thus far I have yet to hear Scott or Kimmy say they believe it is wrong to intermarry. They dont seem to be passing judgement on anyone else so their own decision should not cause any harm. If two black people said the exact same thing to me that Scott and Kimmy said I would not find it racist. Why do you? Why is it so offensive to you? I have no problem with marrying someone of another race, though as I said before Kuzadd I highly doubt I will ever get married. Nonetheless what difference would it make to me if Scott and Kimmy want to marry white as long as they are not telling me its wrong to marry an Asian if I so desire.

So I ask you.....what is wrong with there being blonde people in the future? What is wrong with talking about it?

Edited July 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Blacks are not a race. They are a group of people with similar cultural interests that have been targeted by racists, oppressed by government and society and have banded together to counter the effects of racism against them.

The disabled in Canada have a similar lobby and have been successful at changing laws and attitudes that have presented barriers to their free movement in public buildings, in employer's premises and in equal opportunity.

Perhaps you should start a racist thread about the gimps too and suggest that their disability makes it ok for you to discriminate against them for your own benefit.

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

[ScottSA]

To answer the above nonsense, I AM OF THE OPINION and SCIENCE BACKS ME UP, there is one race and one race only!

Why am I acknowledging the existence of the oppression of ONE GROUP OF HUMANS, over another GROUP OF HUMANS???

Because it exists, it is factual, has been recorded, it is historically accurate.

WHY, because people, believe, misguidedly that certain physical characteristics, give them the "moral " superiority, gives them the right, to subject other human beings to oppressive and abusive behaviour.

I am right in the first assertion and I am correct in the second assertion also.

I can be right in both and I cannot help it appears, you cannot follow complex arguements.

I think what you are trying to say, rather poorly, is that race does not exist in terms of science's current prefered grouping of genotypes, but that it nonetheless exists if you call it something else and pretend it's not race. Assuming of course that you agree that the "groups of people" share certain phenotypal characteristices hitherto refered to as "racial". So let's compromise and call race...let's see...how about kumquats...let's call race kumquats. Well, actually, kumquats is plural, and I'm not sure whether it's spelled with a "k" or a "c", so can we call it "race" just to make life easier?

[sharkman]

Well I'm so glad to discover that there actually are no races. You brave people who have championed this cause have also slayed racism. And to think the world has been struggling with a problem that doesn't exist! We're all one.

[kuzadd]

'jefferiah' date='Jul 21 2007, 06:28 AM' post='238987']

I never denied the basic historical facts of slavery and segregation. You clearly defined that there was one race, and to make a distinction creates an "US" and "THEM" mentality. Isn't that right?

yes

So basically you abohor defining race. Well if you condemn that then you condemn the NAACP since they are able to define colored people----that is unless you make an exception. And you did make an exception for them based on history and racism. Well slavery is over so the NAACP is not still in existence today in order to stop slavery. As it pertains to the present time it is functioning as a buffer against racism.

There is no such thing as multiple races, there are SUPERFICIAL VARIATIONS, in the ONE HUMAN RACE, that adapted as environmental responses, which will continue on, as it has in the past , so shall it continue in the future.

the NAACP arose and continues to exist because of the persistence of racism, and all associated abuses, oppression, slavery, subjugation, etc.,

So the exception for the NAACP (why they are able to define themselves as a group within the human family) is because they still experience racism as a group. And if there is such a thing as racism against white people then the exception exists for them also.

Therefore if they did not experience racism and racist attitudes from other persons within our human family, they would not have had to form a group of any type to protects themselves.

And no one is trying to form a group Kuzadd. People are just trying to talk about white people. Scott mentioned in his original post that very idea of racism and the possibility of it escalating against white people. He did not say anything about attacking other races or that whites are superior. So how do we define white people? Read my post about the girl who was being bullied for being white. Someone obviously defined her as white. Are white people not allowed to speak?

and where at all did I say, anyone was?

You see, when you put words in my mouth I do not appreciate it.

Now I am going to try to explain to you once again, slowly, about the word "exception". One does not have to actually use the word "exception" in order to have made one. When you make a rule or a moral standard such as....hmmm I dont know...saying that defining race is wrong because it creates an attitude of superiority, lets say. This is something you said. So basically you made a moral assessment that this in itself is wrong. I completely disagree but nonetheless....anyway. So you make this judgement. I point out to you that the NAACP and an Asian American group do the very same thing, and you say well yes but thats different. Now when people say "Oh yes, but thats different...."----this is what we call an exception. Do you see how that works Kuzadd? So although you did not actually use the word, I am not putting words in your mouth.

Spare me your condescending attitude, please.

Yes, I made an assessment, that the only reason we as people have defined race, is to enable one group to feel superior, and others to be defined as inferior. We have an entire global history that backs that assertion up solidly.

Here in lies the rub, jefferiah, in ACTUALITY, READ CAREFULLY, because we are one race, the human race, and if the world was ideal and without biases,bigotry,prejudice, and people who need to feel superior, to justify there own actions, if all the humans in world acknowledged the reality of all humans being equal and entitled to equal rights as equal human beings, there would be no groups such as the NAACP.

As long as people persist in dwelling on the nonsense, and superficiality of physical attributes. skin colour, eye colour, eye shape, hair colour, nose size, hand size, feet size and goodness knows what other physical attributes some persons insist on dividing the human race into, there will be groups like NAACP, and perhaps one day, there will be a groups to empower whites in the western world

Where do people learn this nonsense, jefferiah, these biases, bigotry, prejudices?

Usually at the feet of their own parents.

So jefferiah, in actuality, in a perfect world, of respect, and equality, I would not support an NAACP, or any other racial empowerment groups, but, as long as attitudes persist, like a number of the attitudes expressed on this forum, these easily attainable goals of respect, equality and quite likely peace amongst our human family , will not be attained.

Make no mistake jefferiah, we are a human family. ONE human family.

Edited July 21, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

What I would also like to comment on is we ( in general, but not all of us) in the west, always like to espouse our superiority, our way of life, our education levels, etc., as being that of 'above' others in the world.

YET, a number of us in the west continue to espouse archaic attitudes, about humanity despite the fact, we have enough knowledge and should be informed enough to KNOW, these attitudes are just that, archaic.

I truly do think it is time, if we are as enlightened as we claim to be, to move past archaic ideas, and demonstrate, forward or more modern thinking in line with the level of knowledge, we do have.

[ScottSA]

There is no such thing as multiple races, there are SUPERFICIAL VARIATIONS, in the ONE HUMAN RACE, that adapted as environmental responses, which will continue on, as it has in the past , so shall it continue in the future.

the NAACP arose and continues to exist because of the persistence of racism, and all associated abuses, oppression, slavery, subjugation, etc.,

:lol:

You actually see no contradiction here I take it? Either you are immensely confused or your love of commas is greater than your ability to express yourself.

[jefferiah]

What I would also like to comment on is we ( in general, but not all of us) in the west, always like to espouse our superiority, our way of life, our education levels, etc., as being that of 'above' others in the world.

YET, a number of us in the west continue to espouse archaic attitudes, about humanity despite the fact, we have enough knowledge and should be informed enough to KNOW, these attitudes are just that, archaic.

I truly do think it is time, if we are as enlightened as we claim to be, to move past archaic ideas, and demonstrate, forward or more modern thinking in line with the level of knowledge, we do have.

You are wrong. I can believe in the existence of black people within the human family, and they can in turn believe in white people's existence, and that does not require that either one thinks either is superior.

I never said that you said anyone was trying to form a group. What I said was if you allow other colors to go so far as to form organized groups to define race, then why cant you simply allow Scott to talk about racism against whites and the status of whites in the future.

Being able to make the distinction between red apples and green apples, though both are apples, does not imply the superiority of one over the other.

[jefferiah]

Make no mistake jefferiah, we are a human family. ONE human family.

I never said we weren't Kuzadd. But making distinctions within the family does not necessarily imply a feeling that one distinct group is superior to another. For instance, men and women are both equally human. Yet I can tell you that there is a difference. And you can distinguish between them.

And Kuzadd, I have no doubt that you would be able to pick out what Scott means by a white girl to marry. No doubt in my mind. And if you know what that is, then you are capable of seeing the distinction as well. And if you insist that you can't you must be lying.

Why do you keep saying over and over like a broken record that we are one human family? Do you think I dont understand that? You are so enlightened you transcended duality, why did you stop there and not also transcend oneness.

Edited July 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Here is where I would like to correct your view Kuzadd.

You say that making a distinction among races means one of the distinct varieties is superior to the other.

That is wrong. Distinction are distinctions. Superiority is superiority. Two seperate entities.

The problem is when one person adds the idea of superiority to his distinction.

I can observe that what is meant by black people (which you fully understand) usually come from black parents. Have you ever noticed how two black people cannot procreate a white child? And how two white parents cannot procreate a black child? Does that not suggest to you the obvious that there are racial differences. Though maybe they are nothing more than superficial, the superficial does not hurt you either.

So if race is meaningless to you, then you should have no problem if there are white people in the future. Unless you are racist. And you should have no problem with someone choosing to marry a white person. If a black person said the very same thing to me that he would like to marry a black person (meaning no disrespect to white people) I would fully understand that and respect that.

From whence does this silly notion come that preserving one thing automatically means you want to harm another thing? That is utterly ridiculous.

Edited July 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[kuzadd]

Here is where I would like to correct your view Kuzadd.

You say that making a distinction among races means one of the distinct varieties is superior to the other.

That is wrong. Distinction are distinctions. Superiority is superiority. Two seperate entities.

The problem is when one person adds the idea of superiority to his distinction.

I can observe that what is meant by black people (which you fully understand) usually come from black parents. Have you ever noticed how two black people cannot procreate a white child? And how two white parents cannot procreate a black child? Does that not suggest to you the obvious that there are racial differences. Though maybe they are nothing more than superficial, the superficial does not hurt you either.

So if race is meaningless to you, then you should have no problem if there are white people in the future. Unless you are racist. And you should have no problem with someone choosing to marry a white person. If a black person said the very same thing to me that he would like to marry a black person (meaning no disrespect to white people) I would fully understand that and respect that.

From whence does this silly notion come that preserving one thing automatically means you want to harm another thing? That is utterly ridiculous.

You say that making a distinction among races means one of the distinct varieties is superior to the other.

actually I do not say making "distinction among races"

Since there is no RACIAL distinction to be made among humans.

why can't you grasp that?

There are many physical variations,amongst the one race, that are interspersed amongst us all.

There is but one race.

[kuzadd]

http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1?cat=biz-fin

Race and Ethnicity

Within public health, there is disagreement about the meaning and use of the term "race." Often, public health scientists and the general public alike mistakenly base their notions of race on the idea that the human species can be separated into distinct human races identifiable through differences in physical traits (e.g., skin color, hair texture, facial features). Furthermore these ideas frequently carry with them the notion that these physical or other distinguishing traits have a basis in a homogeneous set of genes that differentiate races from one another. These ideas originated in the fifteenth century when the ability to support such ideas using sound scientific methods was not possible. Now, scientists from many disciplines (e.g., genetics, anthropology, sociology, biology) agree that there are no distinct human races as was previously claimed."

hence archaic thinking

A more recently developed concept about race is ethnicity. This concept, which emerged in the late eighteenth century, is usually conceptualized as membership in a group defined by a shared geographical origin or cultural history, including common language, religion, art, and other cultural factors. Ethnicity is distinguished from race in public health studies. In North America, the most common ethnic group designation is Hispanic, or Latino/Latina.

Historically, there are examples of extreme human rights violations justified through the notion of biologically homogeneous race and ethnic groups. Eugenics has been used to target members of racial and ethnic groups with oppressive and genocidal societal policies and actions. Just before World War II, eugenics formed the basis of Nazi genocidal policies toward Jews, and in the early twentieth century it resulted in landholding and job exclusionary policies toward European immigrants to the United States. Race as a social construction and social fact continues to figure prominently in political and ideological relations and systems of contemporary societies worldwide."

gosh I wonder, where I would get the idea, of the necessity of having differentiation has been used to create bias??? So one group the "superior" can justify abuses against the other group , the "inferiors" as I already stated to you we have an entire world history of just this type of nonsense.

Starting in the 1970s, scientific evidence began to accumulate to support the idea that races, as distinct biologically or genetically homogeneous groups of humans, do not exist.

I am going to state that again, for you

Starting in the 1970s, scientific evidence began to accumulate to support the idea that races, as distinct biologically or genetically homogeneous groups of humans, do not exist.

Geneticists have shown that only a very small proportion (6% or less) I believe it is actually the lessor) of human genetic variability occurs between so-called races.

Furthermore scientists within other disciplines, such as biology and anthropology, have discarded such definitions of race based upon notions of biologic or genetic homogeneity. Rather, scientists recognize that the concept of race has been socially constructed—initially in the sixteenth century to justify economic exploitation and political domination of certain populations distinguishable by physical features such as skin color—and that race is a set of economic, political, and cultural relations that result in health and social inequalities.

I am going to repeat that again here, in print in the hopes it will sink in, finally

Furthermore scientists within other disciplines, such as biology and anthropology, have discarded such definitions of race based upon notions of biologic or genetic homogeneity. Rather, scientists recognize that the concept of race has been socially constructed—initially in the sixteenth century to justify economic exploitation and political domination of certain populations distinguishable by physical features such as skin color—and that race is a set of economic, political, and cultural relations that result in health and social inequalities.

The concept of race has been SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED , to justify economic exploitation.

therefore I will reiterate my previous statement

"YET, a number of us in the west continue to espouse archaic attitudes, about humanity despite the fact, we have enough knowledge and should be informed enough to KNOW, these attitudes are just that, archaic."

Archaic, socially constructed concepts to justify exploitation, with no biological or genetic basis.

Jefferiah: I don't need correcting thanks. If you wish to hang on to archaic, socially constructed concepts, created to justify exploitation, feel free.

I don't because it serves the human race in no way, shape or form.

If one wishes to marry people who have specific "desirable" physical attributes, wether it is skin colour, eye colour, or feet size, hair colour , bust size, buttock size, waist size, or 'member' size, one can choose amongst the myriad of HUMAN physical attributes, they are NOT RACE, they are physical attributes.

Edited July 21, 2007 by kuzadd

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah: I don't need correcting thanks. If you wish to hang on to archaic, socially constructed concepts, created to justify exploitation, feel free.

.[/i]

I am not using distinction to justify exploitation. I am using it for practical purposes, to describe something you understand as fully well as I do. If someone wanted to preserve the trait of blondeness it would be higly unlikely that it would happen if that person married a black person. This does not mean this person dislikes black people.

If a "black" person said "You know I would like to marry a black woman and have black children. No offense to white people, but I would like to try to preserve variety." Would this offend you?

[Moxie]

Jeff your posts are a pleasure to read, easy to understand and pleasant on the eye.

There will always be those in Canada that loathe and hate Canadian Culture, in fact we see a few posting here. There is nothing one can do about such racist hatred towards whites but expose the racism. Just because someone of color can get away with being racists doesn't mean they won't be held accountable for their hateful words. Rap Music and Gansta Rap crosses the line, I'd like to see someone challenge their hatred of whites before the courts. I can't cross that racist line but someone of color can, reverse discrimination at it's finest but but but the time are achangen.

[kuzadd]

Jefferiah: I don't need correcting thanks. If you wish to hang on to archaic, socially constructed concepts, created to justify exploitation, feel free.

.[/i]

I am not using distinction to justify exploitation. I am using it for practical purposes, to describe something you understand as fully well as I do. If someone wanted to preserve the trait of blondeness it would be higly unlikely that it would happen if that person married a black person. This does not mean this person dislikes black people.

If a "black" person said "You know I would like to marry a black woman and have black children. No offense to white people, but I would like to try to preserve variety." Would this offend you?

jefferiah, in my previous post, which, you did quote a section of, I must have pre-answered your above postulation

here's what I said.................

If one wishes to marry people who have specific "desirable" physical attributes, wether it is skin colour, eye colour, or feet size, hair colour , bust size, buttock size, waist size, or 'member' size, one can choose amongst the myriad of HUMAN physical attributes, they are NOT RACE, they are physical attributes.

Ta-ta I have said, all i have to say WRT this topic

It's been a blast!

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah: I don't need correcting thanks. If you wish to hang on to archaic, socially constructed concepts, created to justify exploitation, feel free.

.[/i]

I am not using distinction to justify exploitation. I am using it for practical purposes, to describe something you understand as fully well as I do. If someone wanted to preserve the trait of blondeness it would be higly unlikely that it would happen if that person married a black person. This does not mean this person dislikes black people.

If a "black" person said "You know I would like to marry a black woman and have black children. No offense to white people, but I would like to try to preserve variety." Would this offend you?

jefferiah, in my previous post, which, you did quote a section of, I must have pre-answered your above postulation

here's what I said.................

If one wishes to marry people who have specific "desirable" physical attributes, wether it is skin colour, eye colour, or feet size, hair colour , bust size, buttock size, waist size, or 'member' size, one can choose amongst the myriad of HUMAN physical attributes, they are NOT RACE, they are physical attributes.

Ta-ta I have said, all i have to say WRT this topic

It's been a blast!

So then basically you should have no problem with Scott or Kimmy

[Posit]

I don't have any problem with superficial people either.

[Remiel]

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.

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.

Just because " race " is used as a general tool to narrow down a list of possible suspects does not necessarily make it real or correct. In mathematics, sometimes imaginary numbers are used in the solutions to complex problems. Those imaginary numbers help mathematicians in their work, yet they do not really exist.

Also, slavery is still an issue today, but it is different from the slavery of yesterday. Today, it hides in the shadows, flouting the law. However, it has less to do with race per se, and more to do with who can be easily tricked or extorted into it. At least that goes for work slavery. I'm not sure if sexual slavery is more prominent, numbers wise, than work slavery these days.

[ScottSA]

Just because " race " is used as a general tool to narrow down a list of possible suspects does not necessarily make it real or correct. In mathematics, sometimes imaginary numbers are used in the solutions to complex problems. Those imaginary numbers help mathematicians in their work, yet they do not really exist.

Why is race used as a tool if it doesn't exist? I think you lot are really trying to exploit the imprecision of the description to deny the existence of the object.

If an elephant saunters through your flowerbed, and you call it a cat, the fact that you are wrong in calling it a cat doesn't negate the existence of the elephant. What makes this project worthwhile as a comedy is that neither you nor Kuzzad really know what it is you're trying to say, and so you're conceptually twisting and squirming and trying to justify one use of race while negating another, and claiming that race doesn't exist, but that it's used to exploit people. Yet the whole point of your argument seems to be that it won't be used to exploit people in the future or, alternatively, that it won't be used to exploit Whitey...just everyone else.

[jefferiah]

Just because " race " is used as a general tool to narrow down a list of possible suspects does not necessarily make it real or correct. In mathematics, sometimes imaginary numbers are used in the solutions to complex problems. Those imaginary numbers help mathematicians in their work, yet they do not really exist.

Why is race used as a tool if it doesn't exist? I think you lot are really trying to exploit the imprecision of the description to deny the existence of the object.

If an elephant saunters through your flowerbed, and you call it a cat, the fact that you are wrong in calling it a cat doesn't negate the existence of the elephant. What makes this project worthwhile as a comedy is that neither you nor Kuzzad really know what it is you're trying to say, and so you're conceptually twisting and squirming and trying to justify one use of race while negating another, and claiming that race doesn't exist, but that it's used to exploit people. Yet the whole point of your argument seems to be that it won't be used to exploit people in the future or, alternatively, that it won't be used to exploit Whitey...just everyone else.

Yep, because only white people are capable of racism apparently. The white people who don't exist that is.

Edited July 22, 2007 by jefferiah

[Remiel]

Why is race used as a tool if it doesn't exist? I think you lot are really trying to exploit the imprecision of the description to deny the existence of the object.

If an elephant saunters through your flowerbed, and you call it a cat, the fact that you are wrong in calling it a cat doesn't negate the existence of the elephant. What makes this project worthwhile as a comedy is that neither you nor Kuzzad really know what it is you're trying to say, and so you're conceptually twisting and squirming and trying to justify one use of race while negating another, and claiming that race doesn't exist, but that it's used to exploit people. Yet the whole point of your argument seems to be that it won't be used to exploit people in the future or, alternatively, that it won't be used to exploit Whitey...just everyone else.

Why are imaginary numbers used if they do not exist?

If race is the cat, then what is the elephant? Because clearly, the elephant is not a cat. You are the one that seems to be confused, clinging to a disproven description of reality.

Why is it such a hard concept for you to understand, that something that does not exist can be used to negative effect? Remember Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction? The state of being did not prevent them from being exploited by an unscupulous U.S. administration in order to justify an aggressive attack on another nation.

You also seem to have a hard time understanding that if a someone living in a hostile nations attempts to use race to attack various populations, that they will also be wrong about the existence of race, but that the non-existence of race will not prevent them from using it to their advantage.

Or, how about for example, we look to the non-existence of many things portrayed in fiction, and puzzle out how those fictional ideas sell books, despite their non-existence?

[jefferiah]

Why is race used as a tool if it doesn't exist? I think you lot are really trying to exploit the imprecision of the description to deny the existence of the object.

If an elephant saunters through your flowerbed, and you call it a cat, the fact that you are wrong in calling it a cat doesn't negate the existence of the elephant. What makes this project worthwhile as a comedy is that neither you nor Kuzzad really know what it is you're trying to say, and so you're conceptually twisting and squirming and trying to justify one use of race while negating another, and claiming that race doesn't exist, but that it's used to exploit people. Yet the whole point of your argument seems to be that it won't be used to exploit people in the future or, alternatively, that it won't be used to exploit Whitey...just everyone else.

Why are imaginary numbers used if they do not exist?

If race is the cat, then what is the elephant? Because clearly, the elephant is not a cat. You are the one that seems to be confused, clinging to a disproven description of reality.

Why is it such a hard concept for you to understand, that something that does not exist can be used to negative effect? Remember Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction? The state of being did not prevent them from being exploited by an unscupulous U.S. administration in order to justify an aggressive attack on another nation.

You also seem to have a hard time understanding that if a someone living in a hostile nations attempts to use race to attack various populations, that they will also be wrong about the existence of race, but that the non-existence of race will not prevent them from using it to their advantage.

Or, how about for example, we look to the non-existence of many things portrayed in fiction, and puzzle out how those fictional ideas sell books, despite their non-existence?

OK now tell this to an Asian American group, or the National Association for The Advancement of Colored People.

The fact that you are saying that this thing which does not exist apparently can be used for a negative effect, does not automatically mean that the understanding of the concept will make one use it in a negative fashion. Many things that either exist or do not exist, are on their own neither good nor evil, but can be used for both. Do you understand? So unless Scott is planning to attack another non-existent race or treat them in a ill manner with no other reason than the fact that they belong to another non-existent conceptualized race (you realize we have to type everything in ridiculous terms and perform mental gymnastics simply in an attempt to accomodate you), there is nothing to worry about. There is nothing wrong with Scott talking about preserving the non-existence of white people through the non-violent means of marrying a non-existent white woman and having kids who are merely conceptually white. You see how painstaking you make it, over this ridiculous battle to say that something does not exist. If Kimmy would like to have blonde children there are certain people of non-existent races with whom that would be impossible. Kimmy and Scott and I fully understand that THERE IS NOTHING SUPERIOR about blonde people or the non-existent white people. If there were low numbers of this completely and utterly superficial false premised group of non-existant pale individuals of the human family I would see nothing wrong with people taking the personal initiative to indulge in the non-violent act of marrying one of these pale members of the great human family in order to preserve their existence. Though some people may see this as pointless, something being pointless to one person does not make it bad. Not unlike the man who puts up a Christmas tree, while another man doesn't. The tree is superficial, but one man likes it, so he keeps it up. He fully understands that there is no Santa and nothing horrible will happen if he does not put the tree up. Can you understand this? Do you people, who need to make language exceedingly difficult for fear of offending people who make it their life's work to seek offense in every little thing, see how this works?

Suppose that in some ridiculous futuristic period there arose some disputes between people of different eye colors? Blue eyes, and brown eyes. I have brown eyes. Now you could say that the idea of blue eyes and brown eyes could be used negatively. Does the fact that something can be used negatively mean we should abandon it? Would we have to deny the existence of different eye colors, or make a new eye colored contact that both would have to wear? Even though you say race does not exist can you understand who is black and white between ----- Bill Cosby and Tom Cruise. Now neither one is superior to the other. But for practical purposes can you understand that? You do understand that and there is nothing to be ashamed of. It is normal when you see a black person to notice that he is a black person. You all do. It does not mean that you think less of the man, but you notice it. I am sure it is the same with black people when they see a white person. There is nothing offensive in this. Can you understand this? When I see an asian person, I know that he is no less a person than I am, but I also immediately notice that he is Asian. It is very striking and prominent. This is not evil.

Edited July 23, 2007 by jefferiah