B
Bodd
What on saying is get a ballance on this all... Everyone and everything is equal
- Status
Everyone should be equal, but everything is not equal...
One only has to look at our divided country (politics/race/economics etc) to understand that we are now further away from so-called 'traditional tolerance' than we have ever been...
Because as elsewhere, inequality at some point leads to misguided nationalism!
The UK is still a pretty tolerant country.
you think this country is terribly divided over politics because you are actively interested in the debates. Many aren't interested at all or have any knowledge of politics.
Would artificial insemination do?
Basically you believe that there are different races.
And you believe that there can be mixed-race children.
And yet unless I can think of an alternative way to create mixed-race children other than via the normal method (methods?) with 2 parents of different races you can see no reason to consider any issues of different combinations of "mixed-race", or what happens in succeeding generations as these different combinations inter-breed.
Good luck convincing anybody who believes in science that your "no reason to consider" is not simply a (failed) face-saving device employed because you know full well that the utter vacuity of your theory would be laid bare were you to answer.
B
Bodd
This is another word I think is used wrong. I don't like it at all.
It suggests we don't like you but as long as you keep your mouth shut and don't bother me, it will be OK.
I as many and I think you, like people regardless of colour or creed.
When somone acts in a way that is not in the national interest I don't want to tolerate them I want them dealt with...
Last edited by a moderator:
It is a scientific fact that cross species/races natural interbreeding is not possible.
Only between sub-species.
Maybe it is scientifically possible to create some kind of cross between species/races. But it cannot occur naturally.
Of course, between ethnicities, nationalities or cultures, etc, natural interbreeding/ procreation is eminently possible.
Another proof that using the narrow, strict definition of 'race', mixed race children are impossible, by any natural occurrence.
Of course, mixed ethnicity children are possible, occur and exist. In fact they are very commonplace. We are all a product of mixed ethnicity parents. We are all mixed ethnicity people.
As I said, 'mixed race' is a long outdated leftover from the Victorian era, as is cross-breed a long outdated leftover from another era.
If anyone chooses to base their definition or concept of racism on long outdated left over phrases from the Victorian era, they ought to bring themselves uptodate.
Just like it's OK to show your ankles these days.
No, of course not.
...and so must you as undoubtedly they exist and you cannot explain how they occur unless you abandon your all-encompassing definition of race.
It is irrelevant.
Given that there are mixed-race children, 50% one and 50% another, which prove my definition of race, what difference does it make what children they produce, be they 75%:25% or any other ratio?
There is no reason to consider your other meanderings because you have admitted that there are mixed-race children so there must be different races according to my definition.
They do not occur by procreation by people of the same race who happen to have different nationalities or have different religions.
They do occur by procreation by people of different races who happen to have the same nationality or have the same religion.
Exactly, nothing to do with race. He was addressing an individual.
One can address an individual, one can abuse an individual, and as long as you are not resorting to typically racist comments in order to do so, it is not racist.
If I described someone as an idiot, fat, a terrorist, etc, it is not racist.
If I describe someone as a ****** idiot, etc., I am implying that all the other same ethnic/gay/female people are also idiots, which is racist, homophobic, sexist, whichever applies.
It is common sense and common decency.
Of course, when someone intentionally describes or implies that all specific ethnic/gay/female people as any particular abusive word, it is explicitly, intentionally, eminently and obscenely racist/ homophobic/ sexist, etc.
NB. I did not use any words that the censor has redacted, I deliberately used the asterisks.
There is only one race, the human race.
There are different ethnicities within that one human race
Therefore race is synonymous with ethnicity.
Race is the old-fashioned, outdated, Victorian leftover phrase from another era.
To maintain that there are different races, and that 'race' is the defining, narrow definition as used by the Victorians, you are ascribing to the racialist essentialist theory, which is fundamentally racist.
So say you. That don't make it right.
I have proved that your definition/ concept of racism is inappropriate, on two levels, a) it is fundamentally racist because it relies on the outdated and superseded idea that there are several races within the one human race, and b) because your concept of racism is not possible when used alongside your concept of antisemitism.
As you claim, and have claimed, your concept of antisemitism proves the dictionary definition wrong.
No!The dictionary definition of antisemitism proves you, and your concepts of antisemitism and racism wrong!
B
Bodd
Ok This man is most probably an Idle in Japan, and its ok to insult him. Because only it is Sumo's who have tits other than women in Japan.
If he said he's called him a Nip with slanted Eyes thats less acceptable? Wrong I know but the entire Japanese nation can take that on the chin , broad shoulders and all. Not just one man who may be very insecure and take it to heart.
If it was a woman and John Bishop said Ive got bigger tits than her, Is that OK?
If a good looking strapping stallion of a black man called me a spotty little ginger so and so, am I not entitled to say Fnck off you Black so and so??
Words used for illustration purposes no offence is intended
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bodd
Balance thats all I want
I think you need to choose your words carefully, because sometimes a misunderstanding can lead to inappropriate and unintended consequences.
Reconsider your wording: idle = layabout, lazy good-for-nothing. whereas idol = someone to be, or is admired.
According to your comment, John insulted (I assume in jest and friendly banter) an individual. I have already explained the difference between insulting one individual and insulting a whole section of society.
Did you say you were 55, or something like that? And you want me to teach you the niceties of decent behaviour.? Are you for real?
Is he addressing an individual or a section of society?
Did you say you were 55, or something like that? And you want me to teach you the niceties of decent behaviour.? Are you for real?
- Status
