So don't call me racist b/c I am NOT, I have never called anyone a "N", Nor will I Ever I find it wrong and hurtful...
Like I could NEVER EVER date or have a child with any other race but white. For some reason I can't bring myself to do that. Now I have many black friends and they all know my feelings towards that kinda thing.
I kinda get grossed out if I see a black and white couple together But I won't ever say anything I just smile and say hello. Some of my black friends are dating some of my white friends and they know my feelings like I said before and they find it ok, I rly don't care who they date I just can not for the life of me date any race but my own
Quote: from marshmellowman at 4:41 am on Aug. 29, 2008 But you are a racist, you don't need to say nigger to be one, you're avoiding people because of the colour of their skin. That's racism. No it's not. I have never called anyone a "N", Nor will I Ever I find it wrong and hurtful... Saying nigger doesn't make you racist. it's very possible for a white couple to have a black childOh, really? So their kid has 200,000 years worth of genetic mutations right before birth?
But you are a racist, you don't need to say nigger to be one, you're avoiding people because of the colour of their skin. That's racism.
I have never called anyone a "N", Nor will I Ever I find it wrong and hurtful...
it's very possible for a white couple to have a black child
Quote: from kidd rune at 7:00 pm on Aug. 30, 2008 Also, what makes you think rednecks inbreed? That sterotype was created because people associate rednecks with the KKK (because it was primarily in the Confederate states, as rednecks are) and that they were against RACE MIXING. If I have kids with a fellow 100% Nordish woman, I won't really be inbreeding into my own family, will I? I thought your race was your family. lol its ok rune. im jus tuggin' your nuts. as u were
Also, what makes you think rednecks inbreed? That sterotype was created because people associate rednecks with the KKK (because it was primarily in the Confederate states, as rednecks are) and that they were against RACE MIXING. If I have kids with a fellow 100% Nordish woman, I won't really be inbreeding into my own family, will I?
I thought your race was your family. lol
its ok rune. im jus tuggin' your nuts. as u were
Well, on the redneck business; you did (in a way) say that its cool to have kids with your sister. You know; preserving your "family" and all. But that's a different thread anyway.
Actually this racist doesn't even use his own words, he plagiarizes..heehaw
Now, why do you, instantly, consider me a redneck? I'm not one, and that, by you guys' definitions, is racist.
Seeing as I'm not racist or a redneck, you're a stereotyping moron.
And where did I steal this from?
The Chimpanzee, not even in the same GENUS as humans, is 1.6% different.
The Chimpanzee is 1.60% different than the Caucasoid, the Congoid, the Mongoloid, and all other humans.
You just read and interpreted what you WANTED.
Racists are all the same. The ones online just like to use bigger words.
There is no epitome of whites. It is even debatable that the racial classification exists and that the exceedingly miniscule differences between peoples are significant of racial classification.
If you only knew... You probably read somewhere that races are over 99% the same. Well, I'm not denying this, it's true. The pure Celtic Nordic man is about 0.133% different then the average Nigerian. But, that same man is only 1.6% different than the Chimpanzee. The Chimpanzee, not even in the same GENUS as humans, is 1.6% different. Now, to be in the same genus as another species, we would have to be less than 1.6% the same. Now, the difference between an Australoid and Congoid is 0.176%, or 11% of the difference between a Congoid and Chimpanzee. Now, if we had any living hominids to test DNA with, they would probably be A LOT closer than 1.6%. One study by the University of Chicago claims that Neanderthals had a 0.43% difference between humans. Now, Neanderthals being a different species, 0.43% wouldn't be that much, would it? So, really, looking at 0.133% differences is a lot. Enough to claim us as a different subspecies or, as most people call it, race.
There exists difference in genetics between members of differing European villages in the same countries and it can fit that these differences can be significant of different racial classification.
THAT is the debate. It is not that genetic differences among humans don't exist. It is which of these differences are significant of racial classification. I am tired of stating this fact. You believe that race exists, I don't. And we cannot budge either way just as scientists who study this subject cannot do as such.
[I'd like a link to the supposed differences (and I quote, "all those other traits) and then a link as to why (some of which aren't true) these are genetically representative of racial classification and are not superficial.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/927 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/061115.neanderthal.shtml
On the subject of thinking process, There is no evidence for a difference in thought process attributable to racial difference. Whites don't think on the opposite side of the brain as Asians and vice versa. A person of high intelligence with an IQ of 130 will have a difference in thought process than another of the equivalent IQ but there is no evidence that says that on a racial basis, whites think differently thank everyone else. You would have to produce a study that finds a thinking link between the average white person that other peoples don't have. I am 100% sure there is no definable study. And IQ differences don't serve as proof. Asians having higher IQ's doesn't mean that group has a different thought process as another person of a different group with an equally high IQ can display the same problem-solving, thinking, etc skills. Unless you have some study that says that whites have some special way of thinking. Lmao.
There is no evidence for a difference in thought process attributable to racial difference. Whites don't think on the opposite side of the brain as Asians and vice versa. A person of high intelligence with an IQ of 130 will have a difference in thought process than another of the equivalent IQ but there is no evidence that says that on a racial basis, whites think differently thank everyone else.
You would have to produce a study that finds a thinking link between the average white person that other peoples don't have. I am 100% sure there is no definable study. And IQ differences don't serve as proof. Asians having higher IQ's doesn't mean that group has a different thought process as another person of a different group with an equally high IQ can display the same problem-solving, thinking, etc skills.
Unless you have some study that says that whites have some special way of thinking. Lmao.
Now, people like you often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are racially/culturally biased. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.
Now, another thing: Why can't negroes sustain a nation? How come, when negroes get integrated or dumped into a nation, it falls? I can come up with MANY examples, but you should know that this is true. If you think otherwise, give examples.
The existence of race is debatable. And it doesn't matter what you think the definition should be. The aforementioned is the TRUE definition and whether or not you believe in such a fact is non-issue. Truth exists beyond those that choose not to believe it. The only reason why you seek to individually revise the definition of racism and convince others of a different and narrowed definition definition is because it serves your own needs as a white nationalist. You said you were not racist yet all evidence, all FACTUAL evidence that the definition of racism encumbers, states that you are very much a racist.
This is what racism was created to describe, and it's what it DOES describe.
The meaning of racism has changed. This is due to people changing the definition and making anyone, race tolerant or intolerant, racist, only because they want racial preservation. This is because people want to make others think race doesn't exist, and they can't do so with facts, so they have to call you racist, insult you, and dehumanize you, just to make you believe their tainted ways.
These people don't WANT race to exist. These people want to convince others that race doesn't exist. They will, in turn, believe it doesn't, then they will (without thinking) racially mix, thus ending their genetic purity.
If they convince enough people, race really WON'T exist, and the world will be a homogeneous, indifferent, plain wasteland.
Discrimination and exclusive on the basis of race is racism. Therefore, perservation of on the basis of perceived racial difference is racist (surprise, surprise).
Whites won't be getting special treatment, but will be separated so we can live. If someone doesn't want this to happen, they are insisting on murdering a race. You are killing a race, or depriving it of life JUST because you think we should all live happily and that living is racist. Your selfish ways are murderous, and you should be ashamed. Racial mixing has done more harm than racial preservation COULD EVER do.
And despite your reservation, you did know that such an segregation ideal was racist because I made sure to inform you of such earlier in the discussion. Creating an all-white nation, creating an Aryan nation, and seeking to "preserve" perceived racial traits at the expense of the discrimination (this would naturally come along with an all-white nation, as you don't allow non-whites into the fold) and exclusion of non-whites is racist as defined by the definition of racism.
And no, separation is NOT racism, unless indicating the separation is to preserve superior traits. As no such reason exists in my book, it's not racist by definition.
I'm sorry you can't simply change the definition of words at your leisure in order to further an agenda. Perhaps, you should seek to mail a complaint letter to the Oxford dictionary professionals.
Going by the REAL definition of racism, I'm not racist in any way. But, people like you, other race deniers and antis, change it to THEIR definition for THEIR gain.
While you at it, be sure to make it imperative that white nationalist ideals be present within our dictionaries and that all definitions should be simplified. An example of your superior logic is listed below. To be happy, you must be smiling. And to be said, you must be frowning. Or else, you are not happy or sad. I've applied the same narrow definition logic.
To be happy, you must be smiling. And to be said, you must be frowning. Or else, you are not happy or sad. I've applied the same narrow definition logic.
Find out the history of the word.
She wants to have white children b/c it's contributing to her white race. No one is going to admit that, but usually that's what their intentions are.
She is entitled to her own views. But those views are racist.
She even admits to living in what she describes as a racist household. Racism is learned and taught. And she never says she isn't racist. So, there is no contention.
Italy has gone through numerous Moorish invasions, they are not the epitome of whites.
What are genes that all humans share?
I think, what you've been doing is recognizing that there is not a total homogeneity between selective peoples (there cannot be, climate adaption) and labeling whatever specific genes each people gained and retained during climate adaption (an example would be skin colour) as negro, white, etc. These things are simply climate adaptions. They are no more and no less than that. Such as misuse of relevant science in an effort to further an agenda is pathetic. Can you prove that any normal human feature isn't superficial?What about bone structure, thought process, and all of the other traits? --- FIRST REPONSE There is no epitome of whites. It is even debatable that the racial classification exists and that the exceedingly miniscule differences between peoples are significant of racial classification. There exists difference in genetics between members of differing European villages in the same countries and it can fit that these differences can be significant of different racial classification.
--- SECOND RESPONSE [[I'd like a link to the supposed differences (and I quote, "all those other traits) and then a link as to why (some of which aren't true) these are genetically representative of racial classification and are not superficial.
On the subject of thinking process,
Unless you have some study that says that whites have some special way of thinking. Lmao.]] ---
The Definition of Racism; Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...
That portion of the definition proves my point. If you express prejudice or discrimination, an example would be excluding someone of perceived racial difference from a group on the basis of race and another would be the showcasing of prejudice by moving to the other side of the sidewalk when faced with a skewed vision of someone of another background, then you are guilty of racism and thus, a racist.
Do you see any contention?
[[[[All of my stated examples are racist as defined by this and other definitions of racism. This means that the OP is racist. http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx Look: those silly definitions you give were created just do disprove race. Racism is only hatred/intolerance to another race and/or thinking one race is superior.]]]]
--- THIRD RESPONSE [[[The existence of race is debatable. And it doesn't matter what you think the definition should be. The aforementioned is the TRUE definition and whether or not you believe in such a fact is non-issue. Truth exists beyond those that choose not to believe it. The only reason why you seek to individually revise the definition of racism and convince others of a different and narrowed definition definition is because it serves your own needs as a white nationalist. You said you were not racist yet all evidence, all FACTUAL evidence that the definition of racism encumbers, states that you are very much a racist. ]]]]
[[[ I think an all-white nation should exist to COMBAT racism and to keep white genes alive.
Preservation is racism? I didn't know this!]]]
FIFTH RESPONSE Discrimination and exclusive on the basis of race is racism. Therefore, perservation of on the basis of perceived racial difference is racist (surprise, surprise). And despite your reservation, you did know that such an segregation ideal was racist because I made sure to inform you of such earlier in the discussion. Creating an all-white nation, creating an Aryan nation, and seeking to "preserve" perceived racial traits at the expense of the discrimination (this would naturally come along with an all-white nation, as you don't allow non-whites into the fold) and exclusion of non-whites is racist as defined by the definition of racism.
While you at it, be sure to make it imperative that white nationalist ideals be present within our dictionaries and that all definitions should be simplified. An example of your superior logic is listed below.
Look up for new replies. I did it in the quotes.
735 users online 
223822 members 1485 active today Advertise Here
735 users online 223822 members 1485 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
