Racial Tolerance or Just an Act?

[HeyYou]

 

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

 

A discussion of racism + racist rhetoric + quoting debunked racial science + justifying racial stereotypes + denial of proven genetic science = racist.

 

That is why.

 

Your arguments fall flat. You don't have clue what you are talking about, and make generalizations based on information that you don't understand, that are NOT supported by the facts of the matter.

[PoorlyAged]

 

 

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

 

A discussion of racism + racist rhetoric + quoting debunked racial science + justifying racial stereotypes + denial of proven genetic science = racist.

 

That is why.

 

Your arguments fall flat. You don't have clue what you are talking about, and make generalizations based on information that you don't understand, that are NOT supported by the facts of the matter.

 

 

Then refute my arguments with facts. Leave out the racist rhetoric and the racist stereotypes and the science that was debunked in the 1950's. Prove that we are not the same species. Prove that 'race' exists. Prove that racism is not based on superficial characteristics.

[Aurielius]

 

 

[...]

 

Voulez-vous essayer des insultes en français?

 

Voici une invitation bien tentante. Malheureusement votre niveau de Français semble très moyen, dès lors cela ne serait pas "fair-play" :smile:

 

 

This is a very tempting invitation. Unfortunately your level in French is very average, it wouldn't be fair-play.

 

 

I tend to agree, French is not the first arrow i would pick from my quiver but it's still adequate for the task at hand.

My Parisian cousins tell me that my French has all the sophistication of a Quebecois day laborer. :ohmy:

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

 

A discussion of racism + racist rhetoric + quoting debunked racial science + justifying racial stereotypes + denial of proven genetic science = racist.

 

That is why.

 

Your arguments fall flat. You don't have clue what you are talking about, and make generalizations based on information that you don't understand, that are NOT supported by the facts of the matter.

 

 

Then refute my arguments with facts. Leave out the racist rhetoric and the racist stereotypes and the science that was debunked in the 1950's. Prove that we are not the same species. Prove that 'race' exists. Prove that racism is not based on superficial characteristics.

 

We have. Where have you been?

[PoorlyAged]

 

 

 

 

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

 

A discussion of racism + racist rhetoric + quoting debunked racial science + justifying racial stereotypes + denial of proven genetic science = racist.

 

That is why.

 

Your arguments fall flat. You don't have clue what you are talking about, and make generalizations based on information that you don't understand, that are NOT supported by the facts of the matter.

 

 

Then refute my arguments with facts. Leave out the racist rhetoric and the racist stereotypes and the science that was debunked in the 1950's. Prove that we are not the same species. Prove that 'race' exists. Prove that racism is not based on superficial characteristics.

 

We have. Where have you been?

 

 

Obviously we are not reading the same thread. Your arguments have ALL been based on racial stereotypes, debunked science and opinions. You have presented no facts and no truths.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

 

 

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

 

A discussion of racism + racist rhetoric + quoting debunked racial science + justifying racial stereotypes + denial of proven genetic science = racist.

 

That is why.

 

Your arguments fall flat. You don't have clue what you are talking about, and make generalizations based on information that you don't understand, that are NOT supported by the facts of the matter.

 

 

Then refute my arguments with facts. Leave out the racist rhetoric and the racist stereotypes and the science that was debunked in the 1950's. Prove that we are not the same species. Prove that 'race' exists. Prove that racism is not based on superficial characteristics.

 

We have. Where have you been?

 

 

Obviously we are not reading the same thread. Your arguments have ALL been based on racial stereotypes, debunked science and opinions. You have presented no facts and no truths.

 

LOLOLOL. If you say so. And yes, I guess we are NOT reading the same thread. Maybe you just skipped over those posts. The only argument I have seen you put forward, is ONE study, that states most humans have a lot of dna in common. That isn't news. It also doesn't prove your point. But, I really don't care to argue with anyone that simply refuses to believe anything that doesn't jive with their position. Bye now.

[PoorlyAged]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

 

A discussion of racism + racist rhetoric + quoting debunked racial science + justifying racial stereotypes + denial of proven genetic science = racist.

 

That is why.

 

Your arguments fall flat. You don't have clue what you are talking about, and make generalizations based on information that you don't understand, that are NOT supported by the facts of the matter.

 

 

Then refute my arguments with facts. Leave out the racist rhetoric and the racist stereotypes and the science that was debunked in the 1950's. Prove that we are not the same species. Prove that 'race' exists. Prove that racism is not based on superficial characteristics.

 

We have. Where have you been?

 

 

Obviously we are not reading the same thread. Your arguments have ALL been based on racial stereotypes, debunked science and opinions. You have presented no facts and no truths.

 

LOLOLOL. If you say so. And yes, I guess we are NOT reading the same thread. Maybe you just skipped over those posts. The only argument I have seen you put forward, is ONE study, that states most humans have a lot of dna in common. That isn't news. It also doesn't prove your point. But, I really don't care to argue with anyone that simply refuses to believe anything that doesn't jive with their position. Bye now.

 

 

 

Scientifically, there is no difference between human beings. We are all the same. There is only the HUMAN RACE.

• DNA survey finds all humans are 99.9pc the same
• One Species, Living Worldwide
• THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE
• Race is a Social Concept, Not a Scientific One (Op-Ed)
• Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
• Bill Nye reveals the science of racism: “We’re all the same, from a scientific standpoint”
• Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows

All differences are perceived by the viewer. And those perceptions are the foundation for separating humanity into smaller groups. And that separating of humanity into groups based on a perception is the definition of racism. But don't believe me. Check out Merriam-Webster.

 

One huh? I will exclude Bill Nye, because his comments are undated. The rest are from 2017, 2016, 2014, 2014, 2007 and 2000 respectively. Almost two decades of scientific investigation and results.

 

So run and hide. Better that than face the evidence and your overwhelming hubris.

Edited May 8, 2017 by PoorlyAged

[Fatalmasterpiece]

It's quite astonishing that every time I come across a leftist and a right-winger debating, it always end the exact same way. The leftist's arguments are not enough and he resorts to calling his opponent a racist. Why can't the leftist just admit defeat, shake hands and just end the debate on good terms? Why does name-calling always have to be a tactic in a debate? Why does the degrading of other seem like a reasonable tactic? I see this tactic employed all the time and all it accomplishes is making the name-calling leftist look incredibly stupid and arrogant. What is different this time around though is that the leftist employ this tactic in another language in an attempt to make the opponent look stupid because he can't understand him. I haven't seen that one before.

Because the right wing lost in 1945 but is still crying about it. :thumbsup:

[sunshinenbrick]

0101 0101 0101 0100 0100 0110 0011 1111 0100 0100 0110 1001 0110 0100 0010 0000 0111 1001 0110 1111 0111 0101 0010 0000 0111 0100 0110 1000 0110 1001 0110 1110 0110 1011 0010 0000 0110 1110 0110 1111 0010 0000 0111 0010 0110 0101 0110 0001 0110 0100 0010 0000 0100 0001 0101 0011 0100 0011 0100 1001 0100 1001 1100 1111

 

I assumed there would those who took the time. It maintains what little faith I have left. Thank you :smile:

 

My point however being that it is a case of mentality as much as anything else. People like to be different as much as they like to be the same, or fit in with others. Humans are complex organisms and well... there are many variances. I should know as I have all sorts of things wrong with me and surely at the 'shallow end of the dream pool' :P

 

Problems I find across the board, self included, is a sorry case of inferiority/superiority complexes just person to person, in general. Sure you get people who get along, but like with the facade that is our political class it is largely on a somewhat superficial level. As the title of the topic suggests - I think we all have a love/hate relationship with ourselves and others, even those closest to us (maybe even especially! :laugh:)

 

'Wrong war' in that it is likely in the battles with the artificial manifestations of our own intelligence where the frontiers of the future of our species will be fought. We are our worst enemy. If it is not in nuclear wastelands that this is realised then it is through the slow construction of our own obsolescence as we habitually alter our environment to the point where we are no longer able to survive as we presently are - with all relative perspectives rapidly converging into a much wider focus.

[PoorlyAged]

 

0101 0101 0101 0100 0100 0110 0011 1111 0100 0100 0110 1001 0110 0100 0010 0000 0111 1001 0110 1111 0111 0101 0010 0000 0111 0100 0110 1000 0110 1001 0110 1110 0110 1011 0010 0000 0110 1110 0110 1111 0010 0000 0111 0010 0110 0101 0110 0001 0110 0100 0010 0000 0100 0001 0101 0011 0100 0011 0100 1001 0100 1001 1100 1111

 

I assumed there would those who took the time. It maintains what little faith I have left. Thank you :smile:

 

My point however being that it is a case of mentality as much as anything else. People like to be different as much as they like to be the same, or fit in with others. Humans are complex organisms and well... there are many variances. I should know as I have all sorts of things wrong with me and surely at the 'shallow end of the dream pool' :tongue:

 

Problems I find across the board, self included, is a sorry case of inferiority/superiority complexes just person to person, in general. Sure you get people who get along, but like with the facade that is our political class it is largely on a somewhat superficial level. As the title of the topic suggests - I think we all have a love/hate relationship with ourselves and others, even those closest to us (maybe even especially! :laugh:)

 

'Wrong war' in that it is likely in the battles with the artificial manifestations of our own intelligence where the frontiers of the future of our species will be fought. We are our worst enemy. If it is not in nuclear wastelands that this is realised then it is through the slow construction of our own obsolescence as we habitually alter our environment to the point where we are no longer able to survive as we presently are - with all relative perspectives rapidly converging into a much wider focus.

 

 

I would agree with you on a person to person level. When faced with a individual, we generally tend to look a little deeper. Unfortunately, our pre-judgments of groups of people will shade our view of individuals. It is when we start pre-judging people and labeling them based on superficial characteristics that we step out of the person to person realm and into the broader realm called "race".

Edited May 8, 2017 by PoorlyAged