ILovePhilosophy.com

You can tell the difference between a black and a white child at a very early age. A black child will be spontanously baboonish and like a violent ape to his fellow children. Where as the white child requires a context to the violence, he must organize the violence as a "game", or "declare" the violence, before he partakes. The white bully must bully with words as well as fists, where as even the black child who is not a bully, uses fist bullying and wrestling as just his go to, standard business.

White civilization more or less brainwashes the blacks to be more pacifist than is in their true nature. Deep down, you know I'm right, but you will hate me because the truth hurts. But you aren't doing anyone any favors, you don't really care about black kids in Africa shooting each other with ak47s, just want to hold on to your politically correct delusions because you are a hedonist who only cares about feeling good.

Merlin wrote:Piss off Marxist censoring control freak. If you want to debate the subject that is fine but you don't want a debate where instead you just want to outright ban specific kinds of conversations altogether. You people want to turn everything into a thought crime that you don't approve of.

Nobody here is a Nazi or national socialist that I'm aware of. I bet you can't even name one member here that is.

I'm an anarchist where I believe it should be encouraged to have an open dialogue on race and culture.

Every open dialogue proves that everyone is equal and calls for the banning of hate speech, racism, etcetera. You don't want an open dialogue, you and others just want to be 'free' to act without consequence, to hate without reason, and have nothing come of it.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:You can tell the difference between a black and a white child at a very early age. A black child will be spontanously baboonish and like a violent ape to his fellow children. Where as the white child requires a context to the violence, he must organize the violence as a "game", or "declare" the violence, before he partakes. The white bully must bully with words as well as fists, where as even the black child who is not a bully, uses fist bullying and wrestling as just his go to, standard business.

White civilization more or less brainwashes the blacks to be more pacifist than is in their true nature. Deep down, you know I'm right, but you will hate me because the truth hurts. But you aren't doing anyone any favors, you don't really care about black kids in Africa shooting each other with ak47s, just want to hold on to your politically correct delusions because you are a hedonist who only cares about feeling good.

You are full of shit.

AutSider wrote:A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Both are stupid, but the end result is not nearly the same. A group of people who go on to raise a generation of mixed skin color children is significantly different than the slaughter of those people.

As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.

fuse wrote:As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end.

Really? Scientists don't talk about subspecies going extinct, and conservationsts don't concern themselves with it? Not a trick question, I am unaware.

Uccisore wrote:

fuse wrote:As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end.

Really? Scientists don't talk about subspecies going extinct, and conservationsts don't concern themselves with it? Not a trick question, I am unaware.

Sure, subspecies too. Is there a relevant subspecies in question whose members are not surviving to reproduce?

AutSider wrote:ALL systems must necessarily use violence to enforce their order, so to say that the reason you oppose some system X is that it is violent is just hypocritical and a completely invalid argument because whatever your system is, it also necessarily must enforce itself via violence, so evidently it is not violence which is what you have a problem with, here, but something else, some end, some goal which is being accomplished with violence.

A system that holds liberty as a fundamental right need only use/threaten violence against those who impinge on other's liberties within the system. If you want a system in which people are free to do as they choose, the system has to ensure that those choices apply evenly. This isn't an amazing paradox or deep hypocrisy to anyone old enough to shave, any more than pointing out "ahh, but you're intolerant of intolerance!"

Random Factor wrote:

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:You can tell the difference between a black and a white child at a very early age. A black child will be spontanously baboonish and like a violent ape to his fellow children. Where as the white child requires a context to the violence, he must organize the violence as a "game", or "declare" the violence, before he partakes. The white bully must bully with words as well as fists, where as even the black child who is not a bully, uses fist bullying and wrestling as just his go to, standard business.

White civilization more or less brainwashes the blacks to be more pacifist than is in their true nature. Deep down, you know I'm right, but you will hate me because the truth hurts. But you aren't doing anyone any favors, you don't really care about black kids in Africa shooting each other with ak47s, just want to hold on to your politically correct delusions because you are a hedonist who only cares about feeling good.

You are full of shit.

You aren't even black, I am half-black, I know how blacks are.

You are living proof that not everyone is equal, even in open debate.

Only_Humean wrote:

AutSider wrote:ALL systems must necessarily use violence to enforce their order, so to say that the reason you oppose some system X is that it is violent is just hypocritical and a completely invalid argument because whatever your system is, it also necessarily must enforce itself via violence, so evidently it is not violence which is what you have a problem with, here, but something else, some end, some goal which is being accomplished with violence.

A system that holds liberty as a fundamental right need only use/threaten violence against those who impinge on other's liberties within the system. If you want a system in which people are free to do as they choose, the system has to ensure that those choices apply evenly. This isn't an amazing paradox or deep hypocrisy to anyone old enough to shave, any more than pointing out "ahh, but you're intolerant of intolerance!"

Violence is throwing someone in jail. Jail is torture. As world leader I would send murderers to Africa so they can save kids like that Preacher guy in turd's signature.

Only_Humean wrote:

AutSider wrote:ALL systems must necessarily use violence to enforce their order, so to say that the reason you oppose some system X is that it is violent is just hypocritical and a completely invalid argument because whatever your system is, it also necessarily must enforce itself via violence, so evidently it is not violence which is what you have a problem with, here, but something else, some end, some goal which is being accomplished with violence.

A system that holds liberty as a fundamental right need only use/threaten violence against those who impinge on other's liberties within the system. If you want a system in which people are free to do as they choose, the system has to ensure that those choices apply evenly. This isn't an amazing paradox or deep hypocrisy to anyone old enough to shave, any more than pointing out "ahh, but you're intolerant of intolerance!"

It is impossible to value liberty (non-restriction) in and of itself, because in order for any society to exist at all you MUST restrict using violence. What is usually meant by liberty is liberty of certain people to do certain things while restricting certain other things. Thus every society permits liberty, from hippies to fascists, just in varying degrees and with regards to different things. Furthermore, because liberty can also include "liberty to be degenerate", liberty alone isn't a good thing and restricting liberty can be a good thing. Why do you neglect to mention this part?

This is why the simple fact of mathematics is that anarchy is a pointless endevevour. With small tribes and disorganized parties they will all be up for grabs by a violent and hostile superorganism.

This is why aristocracy, aristocracy with me in power is the only solution. As leader of Earth the only rule I would have would be that there are no ridiculous rules. This would ensure freedom, true freedom, in society.

fuse wrote:

AutSider wrote:A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Both are stupid, but the end result is not nearly the same. A group of people who go on to raise a generation of mixed skin color children is significantly different than the slaughter of those people.

As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.

Ah, another "race is about skin color guy". How unusual. Race is not only about skin color, it is about both physical traits (skin color and OTHERS) AND mental traits.

AutSider wrote:

fuse wrote:
As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.

Ah, another "race is about skin color guy". How unusual. Race is not only about skin color, it is about both physical traits (skin color and OTHERS) AND mental traits.

There is wide variation in these other traits among people with white skin color. So when you talk about whites as a race, it's not clear you're talking about anything more than skin color.

But I'll take your lack of response on the original point to mean we've established that race-mixing and genocide do not simply have the same end result.

fuse wrote:

Uccisore wrote:

fuse wrote:As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end.

Really? Scientists don't talk about subspecies going extinct, and conservationsts don't concern themselves with it? Not a trick question, I am unaware.

Sure, subspecies too. Is there a relevant subspecies in question whose members are not surviving to reproduce?

Well, human races are clearly subspecies. I'm not clear as to whether or not re-intergrating populations such that the distinction between subspecies disappears counts as 'extinction of a subspecies' or not though. If a coral reef collapses so two subspecies of fish can interbreed, and thus the distinctions between their populations vanishes, do people view that as an ecological crisis and an extinction event?

Only_Humean wrote:This isn't an amazing paradox or deep hypocrisy to anyone old enough to shave, any more than pointing out "ahh, but you're intolerant of intolerance!"

Being 'intolerant of intolerance' is only hypocritical insofar as leftists define every position they disagree with as 'intolerance', thus rendering 'being intolerant of intolerance' as effectively the same as "Only being tolerant of people who share my ideology", which is what all those intolerant people do. If anybody disagrees with the left about immigration, taxation, education, religion, abortion, gender issues, sexual ethics, health, or economics, we are told that disagreement is rooted in some intolerance or another. How tolerant of the left, that they welcome with open arms anybody and everybody who 100% agrees with them about all these things!

We see the same thing in the current debate as to whether or not it's acceptable to violently attack a Nazi. The debate takes on a rather different cast when you remember how many people on the left who have been calling all Republicans, Tories, conservatives, and religious people (other than Muslims) "Nazis" for decades.

Uccisore wrote:Well, human races are clearly subspecies. I'm not clear as to whether or not re-intergrating populations such that the distinction between subspecies disappears counts as 'extinction of a subspecies' or not though. If a coral reef collapses so two subspecies of fish can interbreed, and thus the distinctions between their populations vanishes, do people view that as an ecological crisis and an extinction event?

Human races are not considered subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens. Moreover, extinction is a dying off, not speciation, not continued evolution.

fuse wrote:

AutSider wrote:

fuse wrote:
As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.

Ah, another "race is about skin color guy". How unusual. Race is not only about skin color, it is about both physical traits (skin color and OTHERS) AND mental traits.

There is wide variation in these other traits among people with white skin color. So when you talk about whites as a race, it's not clear you're talking about anything more than skin color.

But I'll take your lack of response on the original point to mean we've established that race-mixing and genocide do not simply have the same end result.

Actually, I have to correct myself on that and say that, yes, they do not have the same end result, but for a reason I neglected, not anything you said. Namely, that if 2 people race mix then the genes of 2 original races still continue to live on partially and become diluted, whereas with genocide they are exterminated completely. Not that this changes much, since every particular race in its original form would still be exterminated.

As for the rest, keep being delusional if you insist. I don't give a shit.

AutSider wrote:Namely, that if 2 people race mix then the genes of 2 original races still continue to live on

Of course, that is an obvious implication of my point. And it very much does matter.

As for the rest, keep being delusional if you insist. I don't give a shit.

Way to support your position in the face of the lightest of challenges.

2 people find themselves in a room:



A: There's an elephant in the room.
B: No there isn't.
A: Yes there is, but keep being delusional then if you insist.
B: Way to support your position in the face of lightest challenges
A: ....

Open your eyes and you'll see the light/race/elephant

Let's stay at a level of argument at least slightly above "open your eyes".

So tell me about races "in their original forms." Tell me why you consider it "participating in white genocide" to start an interracial family.

Race is simply not a philosophical topic - because it doesn’t exist. E.g. the Chinese share the same branch of the r1b gene as Iberian Celts. species is not the same as race!

Racial superiority therefore is nonsense, and without base.

Now I did make arguments e.g. against trixie [whom WWII Nazis would happily kill] concerning Aryanism, but as usual didn’t get a debate.

If some people don’t actually want a debate, then they have an agenda - a racist one. Just spamming the site up!

Do you agree with spamming!

Well if people are spouting out dribble without even wanting to debate the issue, surely that amounts to spam.


Maybe have a spam section for that kind of thing, or it should be posted in the rant house - given that that is all they are doing.

Btw I recognise some of the characters here from skadi [racist forums]. I could be wrong but one has to be careful with the message a site appears to be yielding.

Random Factor wrote:

Merlin wrote:Piss off Marxist censoring control freak. If you want to debate the subject that is fine but you don't want a debate where instead you just want to outright ban specific kinds of conversations altogether. You people want to turn everything into a thought crime that you don't approve of.

Nobody here is a Nazi or national socialist that I'm aware of. I bet you can't even name one member here that is.

I'm an anarchist where I believe it should be encouraged to have an open dialogue on race and culture.

Every open dialogue proves that everyone is equal and calls for the banning of hate speech, racism, etcetera. You don't want an open dialogue, you and others just want to be 'free' to act without consequence, to hate without reason, and have nothing come of it.

Hear hear. some on this very thread make openly racist threads.

fuse wrote:Let's stay at a level of argument at least slightly above "open your eyes".

So tell me about races "in their original forms." Tell me why you consider it "participating in white genocide" to start an interracial family.

But nothing more than you opening your eyes is needed to recognize the existence of races. If you disagree with me about something as basic as that, it has nothing to do with my arguments, it has to do with your willful refusal to perceive reality, whether it be due to indoctrination, dishonesty, or whatever, I'm not sure.

There are some more complex issues about race which can be discussed, but the very existence of them is something so obvious that nobody who is sane, interested in seeing reality, and not a total dimwit, can't see for themselves.

Just let me clarify one thing: by races in their original form I just meant caucasian/negro/etc. without mixing.

Amorphos wrote:Race is simply not a philosophical topic - because it doesn’t exist. E.g. the Chinese share the same branch of the r1b gene as Iberian Celts. species is not the same as race!

Racial superiority therefore is nonsense, and without base.

Now I did make arguments e.g. against trixie [whom WWII Nazis would happily kill] concerning Aryanism, but as usual didn’t get a debate.

Why would they kill me? I'm not even a Jew.

Let's talk about racism.

Boondocks.

Boondocks is a racist show.

Boondocks was made by a black person.

By censoring boondocks, you censor a black person, which is in of itself makes you racist.

The creator of the show, Aaron McGruber, said it was made to paint an honest picture of the black community. He had hoped that by making the blacks self-aware they would eventually improve themselves. His only delusion was in hoping blacks would stop being niggers, since blacks will never stop being niggers.

Amorphos wrote:Race is simply not a philosophical topic - because it doesn’t exist. E.g. the Chinese share the same branch of the r1b gene as Iberian Celts.

That's because, as much as I hate to admit it, Chinese are Aryans. But they are evil and corrupted Aryans, so they must be conquered by the Japanese.