• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

N.B. diatribe free zone: white superiority bred into western society

I don't argue the question of native vs foreigner in those terms precisely because someone like PA comes along claiming 'you haven't read a first year law textbook' or as he said to me, 'first year quantum theory textbook' and claims ultimate certainty of QT and apparently now also law and morality as set by him.

No the best way to undermine PA's semantic nonsense is using inheritance rights.

If we are equal under law regardless of skin color all other things being equal then a citizen with black or red skin has the same inheritance rights as someone with white skin and cannot be treated more or less favorably depending on said skin colors. Therefore the aboriginal black man and the american indian red man has the same inheritance rights as any white man.

1. White europeans invaded those countries and took the land from the native inhabitants. The inhabitants already there had both a right under law to their land and A RIGHT TO PASS IT ON. The only reason those rights weren't passed on is because they were non-white. Laws based on race are illegal, ESP when they disinherit someone based on race.

2. If laws were applied fairly and equally then the decendants of landowners the natives back then would have inherited the land. This is NOT BASED ON RACE COLOR OR DEFINITIONS OF NATIVE but merely based on COLORBLIND inheritance laws applied equally. They don't have a right to the land because they are natives RATHER because they have legally inherited it from their ancestors to whom the land did rightfully belong.

3. Any other conclusion is racist because it Denys inheritance rights based on race whereas land rights movement depends and is based legally on color blindness and equal treatment under the law.

And that's all you need to mention, not even touching on morality or commensense, which both say the same thing.
 
In my country the Maori killed and ate the native Mori Ori people into extinction and then whined when white people came and over-populated their lands with foreigners.. Lol, not to be nasty, but .. we didn't cannibalise you... hippocrit much? Cant we all just get along? I don't have any land either, life sucks balls for me too! lol probably not relevant to this conversation sorry.
 
Last edited:
claims ultimate certainty of QT and apparently now also law and morality as set by him
Click to expand...

As anyone can clearly see upon accessing the 'Script' thread to which I presume you're referring, I simply quoted a Wikipedia article for all to see, indicating the portions that I thought strengthened my argument re. the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. And I've hardly claimed certainty regarding any topic, whether in this thread or anywhere. It is now apparent to me that:

A) You don't know what you're talking about.

B) You're a coward who, when challenged, finds refuge in other threads and resorts to petty jabs in order to nurse his internet butthurt.

Furthermore, my goal in presenting the legal complications above wasn't remotely analogous to the (entirely rhetorical) question I asked you in the 'Script' thread. The questions re. law textbooks and court documents weren't intended rhetorically nor sarcastically. I asked whether Rudy had read any documents like these because if he hadn't, my example would have fallen on deaf ears by no fault of his own. You, on the other hand, are the proverbial pot calling the kettle a pot. You issue statements of didactic certainty re. quantum theory (in which, by way of your dodge, I'm led to believe you've had no academic training) and get upset when I blithely challenge your opinions in plain English. Get over yourself.

P.S. - As a disclaimer and lest this become an issue down the road, I emphatically do not claim to have any formal scientific training/expertise of any kind.
 
P A said:
As anyone can clearly see upon accessing the 'Script' thread to which I presume you're referring, I simply quoted a Wikipedia article for all to see, indicating the portions that I thought strengthened my argument re. the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. And I've hardly claimed certainty regarding any topic, whether in this thread or anywhere. It is now apparent to me that:

A) You don't know what you're talking about.

B) You're a coward who, when challenged, finds refuge in other threads and resorts to petty jabs in order to nurse his internet butthurt.

Furthermore, my goal in presenting the legal complications above wasn't remotely analogous to the (entirely rhetorical) question I asked you in the 'Script' thread. The questions re. law textbooks and court documents weren't intended rhetorically nor sarcastically. I asked whether Rudy had read any documents like these because if he hadn't, my example would have fallen on deaf ears by no fault of his own. You, on the other hand, are the proverbial pot calling the kettle a pot. You issue statements of didactic certainty re. quantum theory (in which, by way of your dodge, I'm led to believe you've had no academic training) and get upset when I blithely challenge your opinions in plain English. Get over yourself.

P.S. - As a disclaimer and lest this become an issue down the road, I emphatically do not claim to have any formal scientific training/expertise of any kind.
Click to expand...


You here claim certainty and knowledge of me. I claim no certainty.

I only pointed out two of your posts in different forums using essentially the same baseless argumentive technique of claiming other posters have some deficit in the required fields. You made almost identical statements here and on the other thread which I merely pointed out as both falacious thinking and attacking the person not the argument, namely, and here I repeat your statements:

"Have you ever read a graduate-level law textbook? Or tried to comprehend anything..." to above poster

"Have you ever read a first year quantum theory textbook" to me and words to that effect.

Obviously these statements being so similar probably are for the same purpose and thats to claim the other persons deficit.

I'll note here you admit you have no "training/expertise of any kind" yet you claimed "I asked whether Rudy had read any documents like these because if he hadn't, my example would have fallen on deaf ears by no fault of his own" to be the reason for the question to the above poster, but I put it to you that if you have no expertise or training then YOU WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THEM EITHER and thus your point in moot. You admit your question to me is rhetorical while claiming your question to R is not but I put it to you that as your question to R could not have served any meaningful purpose as pointed out above its true purpose was the same as the identical question you asked me.

Now examine this post of yours:

P A said:
It is now apparent to me that:

A) You don't know what you're talking about.

B) You're a coward who, when challenged, finds refuge in other threads and resorts to petty jabs in order to nurse his internet butthurt.

I'm led to believe you've had no academic training
Click to expand...

You'll quickly see that you have used many personal attacks against me and my supposed nature and supposed deficit in the required fields. You seem to attack the person rather than the argument. You seem to claim certainty about things you just acknowledged you have no training about or could not possibly know such as other anonomous individuals. You'll see that NOWHERE do I attack you personally, only your argument and your argumentive technique.

I also put it to you that you have become upset, not me, and thus the personal attacks, whereas my not using personal attacks means that I have not become upset.
 
Last edited:
"Have you ever read a graduate-level law textbook? Or tried to comprehend anything..." to above poster
Click to expand...

No. As I already explained above, this wasn't intended sarcastically, nor was I implying a 'deficit' in the OP's expertise. It was a serious question that I introduced in order to smoothly segue into an explanation by way of analogous example. This is not in any way similar to the rhetorical question re. quantum theory that I directed at you, which was intended to be mildly disparaging. End of discussion.

And if you're still curious, I do actually comprehend the technical language used in court documents in a very limited capacity due to simple exposure. However, neither my nor Rudy's full comprehension of such had anything to do with the point that I made, which was an analogy and nothing more.

You'll quickly see that you have used many personal attacks against me
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, I have. Eventually, a person's blatant stupidity and interwebz arrogance wears on me enough that I feel compelled to express the obvious.

"You are a sad, strange little man."
-Buzz Lightyear
 
In my opinion, my race has many superior qualities when compared to other races.

Does that mean I believe everybody else should be exterminated? Of course not. People need to learn how to differentiate pride from hate. I have many friends from other races/ethnic groups. I don't really think anything of it.
 
Bardeaux said:
But false pride can be nearly as reprehensible as hatred. Claiming "My race is superior to yours, but I like you anyway" is only slightly better than leaving out the last part.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If I tell my g.f. " I am superior to you in math and physics, but I love you anyways." is that really so insulting or bigoted? a) It's true. b) It asserts no larger moral claims that say she is an inferior person over all, just that she can't derive or integrate. c) It makes a positive assertion that I indeed love her, which arguably is the only statement with real world implications.

So it can be argued that such a statement is not inherently a bad one.

That said, I think the idea of classifying by "race" is meaningless and arbitrary.
 
rangrz said:
Not necessarily. If I tell my g.f. " I am superior to you in math and physics, but I love you anyways." is that really so insulting or bigoted? a) It's true. b) It asserts no larger moral claims that say she is an inferior person over all, just that she can't derive or integrate. c) It makes a positive assertion that I indeed love her, which arguably is the only statement with real world implications.
Click to expand...

The difference being that an individual assessment isn't the same as a broad generalization based on something like race or gender.

If you told your girlfriend that you were superior in math and physics because she is a woman, it would be a different scenario.
 
Bardeaux said:
good point.
Click to expand...

Oh shut the fuck up already. "False pride" has nothing to do with hatred. You're not the authority on what's false and what's true. My beliefs are very specific and I don't feel the need to explain them to you in here. If you're genuinely interested then you can PM me so long as you don't try your hardest to be a little smart-ass about it.
 
Bardeaux said:
The difference being that an individual assessment isn't the same as a broad generalization based on something like race or gender.

If you told your girlfriend that you were superior in math and physics because she is a woman, it would be a different scenario.
Click to expand...
Valid and sound argument. ... Even if you can show a statistical inferiority in some way in a race, it says nothing about an arbitrary individual, who must be assessed individually . That said, I firmly believe if you consider all confounding variables, all 'races' would be equal on any task. "Race" is a biologically meaningless term, hence there is no reason to expect different intrinsic differences of any significance in terms of ability to some task.
 
^indeed.

Voxide said:
Oh shut the fuck up already. "False pride" has nothing to do with hatred. You're not the authority on what's false and what's true. My beliefs are very specific and I don't feel the need to explain them to you in here. If you're genuinely interested then you can PM me so long as you don't try your hardest to be a little smart-ass about it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say false pride had anything to do with hatred. I said it can be just as reprehensible as hatred in that you're generalizing entire races as being superior or inferior in certain aspects. Whether or not you love or hate the groups you claim are inferior is irrelevant.
 
"False pride" has nothing to do with hatred.
Click to expand...

Sectarian pride has (historically at least) served as a dubious-yet-ultrapowerful rallying point for extreme right-wing movements of all colors and nationalities. Must this thread go Godwin to prove the point?
 
I believe all white people are inherently greedy and lack a sense of foresight. They should have less privileges and socioeconomic opportunities than minorities because they take them for granted. So, in a nutshell, I just plain dont like white people!
 
I think when you first meet people with (very different customs) it can be a big shock.... for me being half Persian ... im kinda used to different ideas (ways of doing things) but sometimes it can just be... culture shock... don't think makes you racism.
 
This all strems from individals taking credit for the achievements of their ancestors. Judging on an individual basis as has been stated is the only defensible point from which to judge. There are asians who are smarter than whites and blacks who are smarter than asians. At any given point the most intelligent person on the planet may belong to any given race.
Simply because your ancestors built rome invented bebop or first conceived homoerotic sex doesnt mean you have any right to a sense of entitlement.
 
Bucklecroft Rudy said:
This all strems from individals taking credit for the achievements of their ancestors. Judging on an individual basis as has been stated is the only defensible point from which to judge. There are asians who are smarter than whites and blacks who are smarter than asians. At any given point the most intelligent person on the planet may belong to any given race.
Simply because your ancestors built rome invented bebop or first conceived homoerotic sex doesnt mean you have any right to a sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...

What was the point of even making this thread if you were just going to end it with a bunch of ultra-liberal progressive rantings? I thought you wanted people's opinions not some bullshit argument.

That's the great part about living here. I can be entitled to whatever the fuck I please without having to apologize [usually]. In my opinion, I am superior to many people just for the sole reason of where I was born. You can't tell me it's wrong because it's my opinion.

Just remember, it's easy to say you're bias free when you've never really had any disagreements with people outside of your nationality/ethnic group. For example, if every Australian you've ever talked to over the internet was a complete fucking idiot, you would involuntarily rank those people inside of your head. It's a natural response that has been hammered into us since the days of the stone age.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top