---

Quote: from kidd rune at 6:19 pm on Sep. 22, 2008

---

---

We are all one race, the human race

---

Unless all biologists are wrong, Humans are a SPECIES.  

 

---

it's just that God (or science for the atheists) gave us different skin colors

---

And MANY other things. Skin color is the easiest to observe, but is one in the large list of differences between races.

---

And I think all scientists would agree that there is a higher stupidity rate against elitist racists.

---

---

Hell, I'm not a racist at all.

---

Would you please find any aspect of the following that cannot be said to apply to your views?

racism |ˈrāˌsizəm|
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 3:26 pm on Sep. 23, 2008

---

Hell, I'm not a racist at all.

---

Would you please find any aspect of the following that cannot be said to apply to your views?

racism |ˈrāˌsizəm|
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.

 

---

"can you please rephrase the question?"-kidd

lmao

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

---

---

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism

---

---

That part doesn't fit.

---

"The Nubians never created ANYTHING," "Those all had lots of white influence."

You don't remember your pattern of statements asserting the intellectual inferiority of "Negroes?" You don't remember your assertion that every great empire was white and that those that weren't predominately white had "lots of white influence." Genghis Khan was half white too, at least.

Everything you say asserts white superiority. Do you honestly not see that? You're not fooling us; why can't you admit to yourself the implications of your beliefs. You are a racist kidd.

---

Neither does that.

---

Prejudice; to prejudge; Judgment based on general criteria not related to an individual. A "Negro" will score lower on an intelligence test because of their being a "Negro." A "Negro" society will be less successful, productive or innovative because of its inhabitants being "Negro." Those are your beliefs, based not on intimate knowledge of every black individual in a theoretical population but on your generalization, your schema by which you pre-judge all members of the Negro population. Before you bother, statistical information doesn't make these beliefs magically non-racist. A true belief based on fact can be racist just as one based on fantasy. Given that, can you honestly claim your beliefs and values are not racist in nature?

Also, to discriminate; It's called "positive discrimination" in Britain for a reason - to discriminate is to recognize a difference between two objects, whether simply in thought or in action or policy.

Your proposed policy IS based on a program of systematic discrimination in thought; this is a white group, put them here because THIS is a white country. That is Negro, that is Negro, and those are Negro; put them here, it is a Negro country."

Not the popular use, but an accurate one. Given that, how can you say your views are not discriminatory in nature?

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

That part doesn't fit.

"The Nubians never created ANYTHING," "Those all had lots of white influence."

You don't remember your pattern of statements asserting the intellectual inferiority of "Negroes?" You don't remember your assertion that every great empire was white and that those that weren't predominately white had "lots of white influence." Genghis Khan was half white too, at least.

Everything you say asserts white superiority. Do you honestly not see that? You're not fooling us; why can't you admit to yourself the implications of your beliefs. You are a racist kidd.

---

OH MY GOD! WORMHOLE!

---

Prejudice; to prejudge; Judgment based on general criteria not related to an individual. A "Negro" will score lower on an intelligence test because of their being a "Negro." A "Negro" society will be less successful, productive or innovative because of its inhabitants being "Negro." Those are your beliefs, based not on intimate knowledge of every black individual in a theoretical population but on your generalization, your schema by which you pre-judge all members of the Negro population. Before you bother, statistical information doesn't make these beliefs magically non-racist. A true belief based on fact can be racist just as one based on fantasy. Given that, can you honestly claim your beliefs and values are not racist in nature?

---

The Negro, given the same chance as the White, has not created a nation, empire, or civilization. Until this happens, I will not believe that he can do so. I do wish that they would, though.

---

Also, to discriminate; It's called "positive discrimination" in Britain for a reason - to discriminate is to recognize a difference between two objects, whether simply in thought or in action or policy.

---

---

Your proposed policy IS based on a program of systematic discrimination in thought; this is a white group, put them here because THIS is a white country. That is Negro, that is Negro, and those are Negro; put them here, it is a Negro country."

---

---

Not the popular use, but an accurate one. Given that, how can you say your views are not discriminatory in nature?

---

But, of course, you claim it was "positive discrimination", so is there "Positive Racism"?

-------
"If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy you are destroyed."
-Polydoros

---

I'm not. Did you ever think that maybe that stuff is true? OH MY GOD! WORMHOLE!

---

Wherein that lovely dictionary entry did you read "false beliefs?"

The veracity of your claims is not related to their racist or non-racist nature.

---

The genetic makeup of the Negro is WHY he scores, ON AVERAGE, lower than the White.

The Negro, given the same chance as the White, has not created a nation, empire, or civilization. Until this happens, I will not believe that he can do so. I do wish that they would, though.

---

Since you decided to bring the point back, I'd like to point out that no group on the face of the Earth has had the same chance as any other. There is no "fresh slate" in human development. That which started in pre-history is not going to go away simply because kidd rune says "they had exactly the same chances... blahblahblah."

Tell me kidd. Say we drop Biologically "negro" populations in an undeveloped Europe and biologically white populations in an undeveloped sub-Saharan Africa. With a neutral starting point, if biology is to blame, we would see civilization in Africa and  no development in Europe, right?

Problem is, you CANNOT do that. It is so fucking impossible it boggles the mind to think of it. You cannot blame any circumstance of "Negro" populations on their being Negro because your assertion simply cannot be tested. Similarly, the "success" of white populations cannot be attributed to their whiteness. You cannot isolate the plethora of factors, you cannot even suggest causation. It is intellectually dishonest to believe something when it is unverified and unverifiable.

Your belief in that regard is indefensible. As it stands though, ALL of that is unrelated to whether or not you are a racist.

---

The definition you used is considered archaic.

---

No it isn't, it is a current use. "Positive discrimination," to discriminate (make a distinction) between two applicants, in the case of Britain, on the basis of race.

---

But, of course, you claim it was "positive discrimination", so is there "Positive Racism"?

---

Positive discrimination is what "Affirmative action" is called in the UK.

And let's recap:

---

1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

---

According only to uses one and two, and assuming the rare case that the ideas discussed did not involve creating a superior/inferior hierarchy, yes, you could have racial policies aimed towards positive, mutually beneficial ends.

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

Wherein that lovely dictionary entry did you read "false beliefs?"

The veracity of your claims is not related to their racist or non-racist nature.

---

You can't be racist if you're spewing out facts (or lies), only if your opinion itself is.

---

Since you decided to bring the point back, I'd like to point out that no group on the face of the Earth has had the same chance as any other. There is no "fresh slate" in human development. That which started in pre-history is not going to go away simply because kidd rune says "they had exactly the same chances... blahblahblah."

Tell me kidd. Say we drop Biologically "negro" populations in an undeveloped Europe and biologically white populations in an undeveloped sub-Saharan Africa. With a neutral starting point, if biology is to blame, we would see civilization in Africa and  no development in Europe, right?

---

South Africa is a good example for Whites as they immigrated their and populated the region. The only nonWhites were the slaves.

Now, Haiti is a good example of the Negro country, and I'm sure you know how nice Haiti is!*Cough*4th world*Cough*

---

Problem is, you CANNOT do that. It is so fucking impossible it boggles the mind to think of it. You cannot blame any circumstance of "Negro" populations on their being Negro because your assertion simply cannot be tested. Similarly, the "success" of white populations cannot be attributed to their whiteness. You cannot isolate the plethora of factors, you cannot even suggest causation. It is intellectually dishonest to believe something when it is unverified and unverifiable.

---

And, again, Portugal needs to be brought up.

Populated by almost purely Whites, the nation of Portugal rose (in four centuries) to be the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. It was a great commercial and maritime power and had large colonies in Asia, Africa, and America. Portuguese sailors were the first to explore western Africa and they brought back hundreds of Negroes as slaves. By 1550, at the height of it's power, one-tenth of its population were Blacks.

Today, Portugal's population is described as one of the most homogeneous in Europe, having slowly absorbed the Negro gene pool. As of 1975 it had lost all of its outside territories. Its workers are the lowest paid in Europe and they have the highest rate of illiteracy and a high infant mortality rate. In terms of art, literature, music, science and philosophy the Negro Portugal has produced virtually nothing in 100 years and, by most standards, is the most backward nation in Europe.

---

No it isn't, it is a current use. "Positive discrimination," to discriminate (make a distinction) between two applicants, in the case of Britain, on the basis of race.

---

---

According only to uses one and two, and assuming the rare case that the ideas discussed did not involve creating a superior/inferior hierarchy, yes, you could have racial policies aimed towards positive, mutually beneficial ends.

---

You label someone for one reason, but as the term has multiple meanings, the extreme is pushed on them unnecessarily, ESPECIALLY in the USA.

-------
"If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy you are destroyed."
-Polydoros

---

Well, if they're true, it's not an opinionated thought, is it?
You can't be racist if you're spewing out facts (or lies), only if your opinion itself is.

---

If it were fact that the races are significantly, functionally different, you would still be a racist because of your belief that races should be kept separate.

---

Well, this has happened (apart from location itself).
South Africa is a good example for Whites as they immigrated their and populated the region. The only nonWhites were the slaves.

---

Right, because the white immigrants weren't actually coming from an already powerfully developed society, they were starting with a blank slate, and developed South Africa anyway (*chuckle*). If you choose to respond, please do so in a way that addresses my point. It'd be much easier on my fingers if I didn't have to point out how thoroughly you missed the point.

---

Now, Haiti is a good example of the Negro country, and I'm sure you know how nice Haiti is!*Cough*4th world*Cough*

---

Same as above; you didn't address the point. You can't point your finger at any present reality and blame it on race. It is too complex an issue.

---

You can't disprove it then.

---

---

The fact is-All Negro nations have existed, and they never did well. The other fact is-White nations have existed and prospered far past any Negro population has.

---

None of which can be shown to be because of race.

---

(kidd rune's nonsense about Portugal was here)

---

Yet another. I'm getting tired of saying it but I will again; you can't prove that the genetic reality of race-mixing with the "Negro" had anything to do with Portugal's climax.

You've an interesting double standard; Genghis Khan was great because he was half white, but 10% is all Portugal needed to be completely fucked over. That doesn't fit kidd.

---

Does that make it racist? If it does, is it "bad" racism, or, in some senses, helpful?

---

Distinguishing between applicants on the sole basis of race is indeed racism.

---

But, again, calling someone racist (if they are) because of something not necessarily bad, they will be viewed as evil, race hating White supremacists.

---

If the shoe fits. The definition fits; how the public understands the definition of "racism" is not MY problem.

---

You label someone for one reason, but as the term has multiple meanings, the extreme is pushed on them unnecessarily, ESPECIALLY in the USA.

---

I can't say honestly say that I care. You can't deny that you're a racist simply because you don't like the connotations of the word. You may not be one of those lynch-all-the-niggers racists, but you are still a racist. It's time you accept that.

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

If it were fact that the races are significantly, functionally different, you would still be a racist because of your belief that races should be kept separate.

---

---

Right, because the white immigrants weren't actually coming from an already powerfully developed society, they were starting with a blank slate, and developed South Africa anyway (*chuckle*). If you choose to respond, please do so in a way that addresses my point. It'd be much easier on my fingers if I didn't have to point out how thoroughly you missed the point.

---

Civilization had to start somewhere.

The Whites themselves had a clean slate a long time ago-then they created what we have today.

---

Same as above; you didn't address the point. You can't point your finger at any present reality and blame it on race. It is too complex an issue.

---

---

And it comes again; burden of proof is on the one making assertions.

---

Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Negro has invented nothing. Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, or even the wheel.
The same can't be said for Whites.

Why, Shakenbake, didn't the Negro do anything? Why didn't he progress much past the Stone age?
Why did the White do all of this and more?

---

None of which can be shown to be because of race.

---

Even with this, the Negro does nothing but create a shitty nation that Americans feel sorry for and send money to help.

Until the Negro does something, I don't think he can possibly make a Nation similar to that of the White.

---

Yet another. I'm getting tired of saying it but I will again; you can't prove that the genetic reality of race-mixing with the "Negro" had anything to do with Portugal's climax.

You've an interesting double standard; Genghis Khan was great because he was half white, but 10% is all Portugal needed to be completely fucked over. That doesn't fit kidd.

---

And the Negro influence in Portugal pretty much did lead to its decline. Other European countries that stayed one race kept on living, prospering, discovering, and growing. Portugal, a small, mixed nation didn't.

And it's not like Khan was the WHOLE COUNTRY, was he?

---

Distinguishing between applicants on the sole basis of race is indeed racism.

---

---

If the shoe fits. The definition fits; how the public understands the definition of "racism" is not MY problem.

---

---

I can't say honestly say that I care. You can't deny that you're a racist simply because you don't like the connotations of the word. You may not be one of those lynch-all-the-niggers racists, but you are still a racist. It's time you accept that.

---

---

I think that races should have their own lands and a chance to separate themselves from others, not that races should destroy all contact with each other.

---

Still a belief based on racial distinctions; still racist.

---

The Aryans in India? Sumeria? Egypt?
Civilization had to start somewhere.
The Whites themselves had a clean slate a long time ago-then they created what we have today.

---

Interesting to note that India, Sumeria and Egypt are nowhere near South Africa; you can't show that any historical developments along any racial lines have anything to do with biological racial differences.

---

It was a neutral starting point, if not a boost. The Haitian Negroes saw civilization in front of their eyes. Even as the extreme lower class, they lived it.
But, when given the chance to create one themselves, they did nothing.

---

You're not thinking very carefully; a neutral starting point would be absolute lack of any former influences. THAT is how one could isolate the biological reality of being "Negro" and then demonstrate causation. There has never been and never will be a blank slate.

Given switched surroundings, the same period of time and a real neutral starting point, would the "Negro" develop nothing and the white man everything? You assert yes, but you cannot establish why. It's unfeasible. You can't test that, and no historical or contemporary event can serve as evidence for your assertions; there simply aren't any neutral starting points, and there never have been.

---

Hell, people believe many things without the slightest bit of proof. I, for one, have history on my side.

---

History is not on your side. History shows us facts (or it would, were we fortunate enough to have neutral historians. Ha. But I digress). History's facts do not tell us what would happen if white populations had developed their culture/civilization or lack thereof in sub-Saharan Africa. We cannot isolate the pre-historic factors that led one group down one path and another down the other. We cannot therefore attribute any historical or contemporary realities on physical racial difference.

---

The same can't be said for Whites.

---

White development did not take place in sub-Saharan Africa.

---

Why did the White do all of this and more?

---

You want my answer? Chance. That's why.
I cut out everything after this because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

---

But as race itself exists by genetic differences, wouldn't science itself be racism? Isn't our DNA racist as it distinguishes itself from other races?

---

Of course it is. And a tree that falls on a playing child is cruel and malicious.

---

The definition doesn't really fit

---

I won't be posting it again, you've had ample time to read and respond to it. I've shown exactly how it fits.

---

But as common sense itself is racist by definition, anyone with a bit of it is racist, correct?

---

Common sense does not seek to exaggerate differences. Common sense would ask you to seek proof for believed differences. As a thinking and intelligent being, one's common sense would ask one to compensate for all the factors involved and seek the truth.

That isn't what you've done. You've accepted racist ideas into your heart and you seek to defend them by pointing at history.

You should be able to understand why it is we can't test for the causes of white success versus black stagnation. With the understanding that it can't be tested for, you'd be hesitant to accept any assertion of a genetic origin for historical/contemporary differences in white and black societies. Common sense would tell you that your beliefs assume too much, and knowing that, you'd start looking for why you actually believe what you do.

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

Still a belief based on racial distinctions; still racist.

---

---

Interesting to note that India, Sumeria and Egypt are nowhere near South Africa; you can't show that any historical developments along any racial lines have anything to do with biological racial differences.

---

And, yes, they do. Each of the three above civilizations were invaded by Whites and, in turn, a civilization was born. Beforehand, Whites weren't existent in the area and neither was a strong civilization.

---

You're not thinking very carefully; a neutral starting point would be absolute lack of any former influences. THAT is how one could isolate the biological reality of being "Negro" and then demonstrate causation. There has never been and never will be a blank slate.

Given switched surroundings, the same period of time and a real neutral starting point, would the "Negro" develop nothing and the white man everything? You assert yes, but you cannot establish why. It's unfeasible. You can't test that, and no historical or contemporary event can serve as evidence for your assertions; there simply aren't any neutral starting points, and there never have been.

---

Did someone walk up and give the Whites civilization?

If not, humanoid civilization didn't exist and, therefore, one race simply created it while another didn't.

---

History is not on your side. History shows us facts (or it would, were we fortunate enough to have neutral historians. Ha. But I digress). History's facts do not tell us what would happen if white populations had developed their culture/civilization or lack thereof in sub-Saharan Africa. We cannot isolate the pre-historic factors that led one group down one path and another down the other. We cannot therefore attribute any historical or contemporary realities on physical racial difference.

---

---

White development did not take place in sub-Saharan Africa.

---

---

You want my answer? Chance. That's why.
I cut out everything after this because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

---

May I ask you this: Why hasn't the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, or some other species created a civilization?

---

Of course it is. And a tree that falls on a playing child is cruel and malicious.

---

A fact is a fact. It's unchangeable. If DNA makes West African Negroes the fastest sprinters in the world, yet not the best long distance runners, is that because it's racist? Their genetic makeup is why they excel at one thing, yet come short in another.

---

I won't be posting it again, you've had ample time to read and respond to it. I've shown exactly how it fits.

---

---

Common sense does not seek to exaggerate differences. Common sense would ask you to seek proof for believed differences. As a thinking and intelligent being, one's common sense would ask one to compensate for all the factors involved and seek the truth.

---

---

That isn't what you've done. You've accepted racist ideas into your heart and you seek to defend them by pointing at history.

---

---

You should be able to understand why it is we can't test for the causes of white success versus black stagnation. With the understanding that it can't be tested for, you'd be hesitant to accept any assertion of a genetic origin for historical/contemporary differences in white and black societies. Common sense would tell you that your beliefs assume too much, and knowing that, you'd start looking for why you actually believe what you do.

---

---

No, it isn't as it's only claiming that races are different, they have a right to live, and that separation is the only way to do so.

---

Do you have a thesaurus handy? Please tell me how the "claim that races are different" is not "racial distinction."

---

This isn't related to the South African nation.

---

You implied that South Africa was developed because white populations lived there. I've pointed out that white populations did not develop their society, their technology, their way of life there; they imported it.

---

And, yes, they do. Each of the three above civilizations were invaded by Whites and, in turn, a civilization was born. Beforehand, Whites weren't existent in the area and neither was a strong civilization.

---

Citation from a non-racist source please. Actually, don't bother; it's still irrelevant.

---

So the Whites had some sort of influence on them while the Negroes didn't? Did someone walk up and give the Whites civilization?

---

True or false; white and black populations developed their ways/technologies under different circumstances. If you can't concede even that, there's no point talking to you.  

---

They never went there. But, it did take place in Egypt. Before Whites migrated into Egypt, the Nubians existed there, yet had no real civilization. The Whites had the same circumstances yet created something of it.

---

Unfounded and irrelevant, again. Add that to the list of things that cannot be attributed to racial difference.

---

"Chance". That's a good one.

---

It's a scary thought, isn't it? Nobody I've spoken with seems to like the idea much, but it's the truth. EVERYTHING is the result of stacking chances.

---

May I ask you this: Why hasn't the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, or some other species created a civilization?

---

Because unlike every color of human, they lack the necessary sentience.

---

I don't think a fact can be racist, as it can't choose between it, nor is it "a belief or doctrine...".

---

Facts can't be racist, the beliefs relating to them can. Is your confidence in the merits of racial separation not a belief?

---

A fact is a fact. It's unchangeable. If DNA makes West African Negroes the fastest sprinters in the world, yet not the best long distance runners, is that because it's racist? Their genetic makeup is why they excel at one thing, yet come short in another.

---

I guess you didn't get the malicious-tree reference. Human thought/doctrine can be racist. Nothing else.
"Blacks are the best sprinters," could be fact, but "Blacks are the best sprinters, so I'll have only blacks on my team," is racist. Do you understand why?  

---

Nah.

---

---

This, by definition, is racism, yet is 100% true.

---

No, that is not racism. Those are not beliefs or ideologies. "'Negroes' aren't well adapted for North America, so we should send 'em all back," is racist. This isn't as difficult as you're making it.  

Facts relating to race cannot be racist. Beliefs, ideologies, policies, doctrines, ideas based on facts or falsehoods related to race are racist.

---

Mhmm.

---

I suppose I win then.

Post edited at 6:39 pm on Sep. 27, 2008 by Shaknbake

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

Do you have a thesaurus handy? Please tell me how the "claim that races are different" is not "racial distinction."

---

---

True or false; whites and black populations developed their ways/technologies under different circumstances. If you can't concede even that, there's no point talking to you.

---

---

It's a scary thought, isn't it? Nobody I've spoken with seems to like the idea much, but it's the truth. EVERYTHING is the result of stacking chances.

---

---

Because unlike every color of human, they lack the necessary sentience.

---

---

So your belief that the races would be better of separate isn't a belief at all? Intriguing.

---

---

I guess you didn't get the malicious-tree reference. Human thought/doctrine can be racist. Nothing else.
"Blacks are the best sprinters," could be fact, but "Blacks are the best sprinters, so I'll have only blacks on my team," is racist. Do you understand why?

Nah.
Acceptance is the first stage to recovery. Shall we go over the definition again?

---

---

No, that is not racism. Those are not beliefs or ideologies. "'Negroes' aren't well adapted for North America, so we should send 'em all back," is racist. This isn't as difficult as you're making it.

Facts relating to race cannot be racist. Beliefs, ideologies, policies, doctrines, ideas based on facts or falsehoods related to race are racist.

---

---

I suppose I win then.

---