Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic White Supremacists irritate me. Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]I never forget[/m] at 6:07 pm on Oct. 28, 2008[quote]Neo-Nazi's in the U.S. are funny.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post The Last Magister Posted at 6:06 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 If you are one, do me a favor, and dye your skin, so I don't have to be ashamed of you being the same skin color as me anymore, because I'm honestly tired of having people hold you as stereotypes over my head. Oh, neo-Nazis, you too.

Replies kidd rune Posted at 8:48 am on Nov. 3, 2008 Which just proves how far gone he is. Have you read his reasoning or do you just run at the sight of anything you don't agree with? I though you said it was not just skin color. I can distinguish it EASILY through skulls too - find a Nordic skull and a Negro skull and see how I do. Which proves that subspecies can't be used for separating modern humans.   No, it proves none of the sort - just because some people in one country are mixed, does NOT prove that subspecies/race can't separate humans. jakelong Posted at 12:17 am on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:24 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 He believes Caucasoid is a subspecies and Nordic is a race inside of that subspecies. Which just proves how far gone he is. Alright - you are telling me that you can't distinguish a 100% Nordic man from a 100% Negro man? Get your eyes checked.   I though you said it was not just skin color. Black Americans are 30% White anywho... Which proves that subspecies can't be used for separating modern humans. kidd rune Posted at 7:24 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 He says that there are no "races' but subspecies and then speaks of the "nordish race"? He believes Caucasoid is a subspecies and Nordic is a race inside of that subspecies. I would say the #1 does not really apply to races. Alright - you are telling me that you can't distinguish a 100% Nordic man from a 100% Negro man? Get your eyes checked. But I am 100% sure that #2 is NOT applicable. Black americans by that definition are NOT a different subspecies than white americans. Black Americans are 30% White anywho... jakelong Posted at 3:36 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:31 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 He does however admit to harbouring a special aesthetic admiration for the Nordish race. He says that there are no "races' but subspecies and then speaks of the "nordish race"? Here is the definition of subspecies Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different DNA sequences from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species. It is not possible to understand the concept of a subspecies without first grasping what a species is. In the context of many large living organisms like trees, flowers, birds, fish and humans, a species can be defined as a distinct and recognisable group that satisfies two conditions: 1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernible. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored. 2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and sometimes can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent. I would say the #1 does not really apply to races. But I am 100% sure that #2 is NOT applicable. Black americans by that definition are NOT a different subspecies than white americans. The only way to make sure that races =subspecies by that denition is to ONLY use skin color. But from genetics or other traits it doesn't work. kidd rune Posted at 2:31 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 What makes the definition I gave about race incorrent? Why did you have to use the definition from the racialist website? Where did I say your definition (which was actually many definitions) was incorrect? Why did I? Because it's accurate. Just brilliant to use a racialist definition. Basically proves the point. Here's what he believes: McCulloch defines race to be a genetic population of humans similar to the way a species is a subdivision of a genus in taxonomy. He does not consider Caucasoid to be a race but a "subspecies", since it is too broad to have any functional meaning. Real races he contends are limited to smaller populations. He further explains that these races were formed by genetic isolation among the populations who migrated out of Africa. And here: According to McCulloch his views are not motivated by hate or animosity against anyone but a love of human diversity. He does however admit to harbouring a special aesthetic admiration for the Nordish race. jakelong Posted at 1:02 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 12:54 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 1 - The fact that the site is ABOUT race is what makes it racialist. ra·cial·ism (rsh-lzm) n. 1. a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations. 2. Chiefly British Variant of racism. What makes the site wrong or factually incorrect? What makes the definition I gave about race incorrent? Why did you have to use the definition from the racialist website? Just brilliant to use a racialist definition. Basically proves the point. kidd rune Posted at 12:54 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 From a racialist white seperatists website. Brilliant 1 - The fact that the site is ABOUT race is what makes it racialist. 2 - He wants the White race to SURVIVE - he finds that, through trial and failure, the ONLY way to do this is separation. What makes the site wrong or factually incorrect? jakelong Posted at 1:56 am on Nov. 1, 2008 Race definition race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.   2. a population so related.   3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.   b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.   c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.   4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.   5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.   6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.   7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.   8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.   9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.   10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.   -adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.   jakelong Posted at 1:56 am on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:01 am on Oct. 31, 2008 What is race? Because I'm still wondering. We've already reached that conclusion that most, if not all, humans populations have differences. But that doesn't classify new speciation. And the debate is whether or not it even classifies racial difference. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html From a racialist white seperatists website. Brilliant jakelong Posted at 1:48 am on Nov. 1, 2008 LOL. Right on man!   BleedingSteelWings Posted at 11:26 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from FingerSub at 10:39 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Trendsetta at 8:08 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Lulu Nobody at 9:07 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Supremacists of nearly all kinds irritate me.    Supremacists of ALL kinds irritate me. This. This along with Extremists of all kinds too. They just nag at us... It's like a disease of the species. The Last Magister Posted at 11:22 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from ThePuppeteer at 7:04 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Your Magister-Supremacist. Go cry some more emo-bitch, how about you leave Trashed alone next time so I don't have to tell you what a miserable failure you are. kidd rune Posted at 7:01 am on Oct. 31, 2008 What is race? Because I'm still wondering. We've already reached that conclusion that most, if not all, humans populations have differences. But that doesn't classify new speciation.  And the debate is whether or not it even classifies racial difference. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html ThePuppeteer Posted at 5:04 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Your Magister-Supremacist. Takinam Posted at 12:28 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:40 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Race isn't a skin color - I just wanted you to know that. What is race? Because I'm still wondering. We've already reached that conclusion that most, if not all, humans populations have differences. But that doesn't classify new speciation.  And the debate is whether or not it even classifies racial difference. Most recent 15 of 36 previous replies displayed.