| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Daniel Joseph Min" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 04:52:24 AM |
| Object: |
A hymn of love for God's real children |
Niggers, niggers, dirty boot-lipped niggers,
He will deliver us from the dirty niggers,
They smell bad, they live to use drugs,
He will deliver us from the primative niggers.
Spics, spics, dirty mud-faced spics,
He will deliver us from the lazy spics,
They live in vans and mug old women,
He will deliver us from the worthless spics.
Pollocks, pollocks, silly dumbassed pollocks,
He will deliver us from the remedial pollocks
They're the dumbest bastards in history,
He will deliver us from the retarded pollocks.
Wops, wops, dirty fly impregnating wops,
He will deliver us from the criminal wops,
They run every business like organized crime,
He will deliver us from the pasta eating wops.
Gooks, gooks, dirty slant eyed gooks,
He will deliver us from the slopey gooks,
They slurp on rice and live in swamps,
He will deliver us from the zipperheaded gooks.
(chorus)
God bless the great white man,
God bless the master race,
God bless conservative cause,
God bless our holy ways,
Dedicted to the holy George W. Bush
God's representative on Earth
--
We are Many
Mark 5:9
.
|
|
| User: "Harry Krause" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
16 Jan 2005 10:07:39 AM |
|
|
Vigilante wrote:
Oh contrare, racism never died out and never will, it is programmed
into our genes by nature. It can not be legislated out of existance
and nature's indifferant to political correctness.
Bulldork. The wind blew, the crap flew, and in walked "Vigilante" and
the rest of the cowardly racist pigs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
16 Jan 2005 03:04:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:07:39 -0500, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
The wind blew, the crap flew, and in walked "Vigilante" and
the rest of the cowardly racist pigs.
And childish name calling doesn't win the debate.
Clearly, in this battle of wits, you were unarmed.
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
16 Jan 2005 01:54:58 PM |
|
|
Vigilante wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 07:36:05 -0800, wrote:
You're largely right,
I am exactly right
Ponder this. Human beings, unlike other apes, have extremely flexible
ideas of "tribe"
Unlike other apes? Recent video of bonobo chimps shows that apes of
one "tribe" patrol their territory daily. When they encounter chimps
from another tribe war errupts and they fight to the death. They do
not interbreed or comingle. Same is true of lower mammals.
That's because the tribes they encounter are tribes of _different species_.
Even when
they don't compete for food, they will not tolerate each other's
presence. Ignorance on their part or instinctive behavior?
Interspecies conflict.
Your ignorant way of life is steadily dying out.
Oh contrare, racism never died out and never will, it is programmed
into our genes by nature. It can not be legislated out of existance
and nature's indifferant to political correctness.
3-7-77
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
16 Jan 2005 03:13:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:54:58 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
That's because the tribes they encounter are tribes of _different species_.
Interspecies conflict.
I was speaking of bonobo chimps, all chimps of any subspecies are the
same species. Learn to read before engaging mouth.
One pride of lions won't tolerate the presence of a differant pride of
lions. Gray squirrels drive off any other gray squirrels who enter
their territory. Wolves, Hyenas, coyotes are all the same species
(canis) and they will not interbreed or comingle. Same is true between
black bear and grizzlies. Robins and crows. Ducks and geese.
It's nature's way of protecting the species from epidemic.
But then, you could make the case that white humans disdain negroes
presisely because we're not the same species. If species are defined
by their behavior rather than body shape alone.
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 06:06:10 AM |
|
|
Vigilante wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:54:58 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
That's because the tribes they encounter are tribes of _different species_.
Interspecies conflict.
I was speaking of bonobo chimps, all chimps of any subspecies are the
same species. Learn to read before engaging mouth.
Bonobos are a species entirely different from all other chimpanzees.
It's why they call them "bonobos" instead of "pygmy chimps" which was
their designation before it became understood that they were indeed a
different species.
One pride of lions won't tolerate the presence of a differant pride of
lions.
Lions are not primates. Even for cats they're rather exceptional as they
are the only pack-hunting cats. (Cheetahs are not cats, though they are
quite related and are in the same family.)
Gray squirrels drive off any other gray squirrels who enter
Squirrels are not primates.
their territory. Wolves, Hyenas, coyotes are all the same species
(canis) and they will not interbreed or comingle.
Actually, coyotes and wolves are in the same family, but are not of the
same species. They can both mate with dogs, but the wolf and the dog are
capable of matings resulting in fertile offspring. The coyote are of a
species separate from wolves; they can and occasionally do mate with
dogs though the offspring are not fertile. Hyaenae are not even in the
same family as wolves.
Same is true between
black bear and grizzlies. Robins and crows. Ducks and geese.
In each of these latter cases, you are discussing different species or
even different major families. Mating might be impossible, not merely
unlikely. In all cases the signals responsible for triggering mating
behaviour aren't interpreted as such by members of other species.
It's nature's way of protecting the species from epidemic.
Where exactly you got this conclusion, I've no idea. That this may be
true enough is unrelated and thus non-sequitur.
But then, you could make the case that white humans disdain negroes
presisely because we're not the same species. If species are defined
by their behavior rather than body shape alone.
Ah, but we are all the same species. Except, it would seem, for you,
bloodsucker.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Tucker mtucker at mweb.co.za" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 06:53:12 AM |
|
|
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:41EBAA32.5070102@earthops.net...
Vigilante wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:54:58 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
That's because the tribes they encounter are tribes of _different
species_.
Interspecies conflict.
I was speaking of bonobo chimps, all chimps of any subspecies are the
same species. Learn to read before engaging mouth.
Bonobos are a species entirely different from all other chimpanzees.
It's why they call them "bonobos" instead of "pygmy chimps" which was
their designation before it became understood that they were indeed a
different species.
One pride of lions won't tolerate the presence of a differant pride of
lions.
Lions are not primates. Even for cats they're rather exceptional as they
are the only pack-hunting cats. (Cheetahs are not cats, though they are
quite related and are in the same family.)
Gray squirrels drive off any other gray squirrels who enter
Squirrels are not primates.
their territory. Wolves, Hyenas, coyotes are all the same species
(canis) and they will not interbreed or comingle.
Actually, coyotes and wolves are in the same family, but are not of the
same species. They can both mate with dogs, but the wolf and the dog are
capable of matings resulting in fertile offspring. The coyote are of a
species separate from wolves; they can and occasionally do mate with
dogs though the offspring are not fertile. Hyaenae are not even in the
same family as wolves.
Fascinating stuff, but how is it related to Freemasonry?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 11:03:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:06:10 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
Hyaenae are not even in the
same family as wolves.
Quite right, my error, I meant to say jackels.
You might take an opportunity to watch the National Geographic
channel, they got this 2 hr. special titled "Predators at War".
And before you start in on that interspecies rivalry stuff. Note that
a hyena from a neighboring pack strays into the terroritory of other
hyenas and they immediately set upon him. As the narrator comments "he
was the wrong hyena in the wrong place at the wrong time". Same
species, but won't tolerate each other's presence. Guess what happens
when a honeybee of the same species lands in the hive of a differant
queen bee. The guards kill it. If an army ant wanders into a differant
nest of army ants, he's set upon and killed by members of his same
species.
Your arguments are nothing but subjectivist "feel good" sophistry.
Nature is coldly objectivist in it's reality.
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Krause" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 11:13:26 AM |
|
|
Vigilante wrote:
And before you start in on that interspecies rivalry stuff. Note that
a hyena from a neighboring pack strays into the terroritory of other
hyenas and they immediately set upon him.
This is behavior you admire and would advocate for humans?
Figures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 01:27:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:13:26 -0500, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is behavior you admire and would advocate for humans?
Figures.
I don't make judgements on nature or evolution. It is what it is.
That's why we call it reality.
Yes, nature is mean, get over it.
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--=Cochise~|||®|||~Guardian=--" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 12:12:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:13:26 -0500, Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
Vigilante wrote:
And before you start in on that interspecies rivalry stuff. Note that
a hyena from a neighboring pack strays into the terroritory of other
hyenas and they immediately set upon him.
This is behavior you admire and would advocate for humans?
Figures.
The behavior is akin to that of spic gangs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Krause" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 12:17:31 PM |
|
|
--=Cochise~<|||<®>|||>~Guardian=-- wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:13:26 -0500, Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
Vigilante wrote:
And before you start in on that interspecies rivalry stuff. Note that
a hyena from a neighboring pack strays into the terroritory of other
hyenas and they immediately set upon him.
This is behavior you admire and would advocate for humans?
Figures.
The behavior is akin to that of spic gangs.
Gang behavior is gang behavior. Every ethnic group, including white
breads, have gangs that exhibit bad behavior. Whatever gang you are in
should have been flushed down the ocmmode generations ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--=Cochise~|||®|||~Guardian=--" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 01:57:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:17:31 -0500, Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
--=Cochise~<|||<®>|||>~Guardian=-- wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:13:26 -0500, Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
Vigilante wrote:
And before you start in on that interspecies rivalry stuff. Note that
a hyena from a neighboring pack strays into the terroritory of other
hyenas and they immediately set upon him.
This is behavior you admire and would advocate for humans?
Figures.
The behavior is akin to that of spic gangs.
Gang behavior is gang behavior. Every ethnic group, including white
breads, have gangs that exhibit bad behavior. Whatever gang you are in
should have been flushed down the ocmmode generations ago.
May you be bent over and screwed silly by one of your pet beaners, Pirate :-D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 01:12:47 PM |
|
|
Vigilante wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:06:10 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
Hyaenae are not even in the
same family as wolves.
Quite right, my error, I meant to say jackels.
You might take an opportunity to watch the National Geographic
channel, they got this 2 hr. special titled "Predators at War".
And before you start in on that interspecies rivalry stuff. Note that
a hyena from a neighboring pack strays into the terroritory of other
hyenas and they immediately set upon him. As the narrator comments "he
was the wrong hyena in the wrong place at the wrong time". Same
species, but won't tolerate each other's presence. Guess what happens
when a honeybee of the same species lands in the hive of a differant
queen bee. The guards kill it. If an army ant wanders into a differant
nest of army ants, he's set upon and killed by members of his same
species.
Your arguments are nothing but subjectivist "feel good" sophistry.
Nature is coldly objectivist in it's reality.
But you appear to have major difficulties with where you put the
apostrophe in the possessive case of third-person nongender. Clue, there
_is_ no apostrophe in that case.
My arguments aren't intended to make anyone feel good, nor are they
sophist in the last. You, however, are attempting -- doubtless more
disingenuously than otherwise -- to take examples from non-human
non-primate behavior and directly compare them to human behaviour. If
you're attempting to say "tribalism, in the sense of discreet social
groups excluding non-members, has analogues throughout all of Mammalia",
you could have come right out and said that. However, historically and
until quite recent times, such exclusions were made on the basis of
people being non-clan, moreso than on the basis of skin-color, etc.
Indeed, the historical trend has been for the sufficiently different to
be captured into the group, rather than driven away, as humans seek
increased genetic diversity as much as do any other mammals. It was the
rival that was most similar which was ordinarily to be subjected to the
most aggressive attack, as the competition for resources could be
presumed to be greatest among those which were most similar.
Hope that helps, and maybe you should study a bit more befoer you try to
form theories on your own.
Apologies to the freemasonry folks and others.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 01:40:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:12:47 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
But you appear to have major difficulties with where you put the
apostrophe in the possessive case of third-person nongender. Clue, there
_is_ no apostrophe in that case.
It has been said that spellchecking is the last refuge of the lamer.
Now we can add punctuation checking to that as well.
to take examples from non-human
non-primate behavior and directly compare them to human behaviour.
My simple response: Are humans products of nature? Yes or no?
Seems like so many on the left want to portray humans as something
alien to life on Earth, beings who behave contrary to the intent of
nature. In fact, we are animals, pure and simple, constrained to
behave as nature intended for the good of our species. You can
acknowledge this fact but you can't run from it.
And I do believe this discussion is germain to the subject of
Freemasonry. As enlighted self interest is a Masonic tenet.
You can do no good for others if you fail to care for yourself first
and foremost.
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: It's been fun, but I gotta go now |
18 Jan 2005 12:02:25 PM |
|
|
I been ignoring my pets at alt.flame.niggers too long.
For all you enlightened tolerant types who've been following my thread
all I can say is, I'm not advocating racism for you. My goal is to
explain the phenomenon. Racism is not based on ignorance, but rather
on instinct. Some folks are more intune with their instincts, we call
them survivors. Some folks ignore their instincts and give the benefit
of the doubt to those who don't deserve it, we call them victims.
Thanks for your time and feel free to drop by AFN anytime. Tell 'em
Vigilante sent ya.
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 05:19:45 PM |
|
|
Vigilante wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:12:47 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
But you appear to have major difficulties with where you put the
apostrophe in the possessive case of third-person nongender. Clue, there
_is_ no apostrophe in that case.
It has been said that spellchecking is the last refuge of the lamer.
Now we can add punctuation checking to that as well.
to take examples from non-human
non-primate behavior and directly compare them to human behaviour.
My simple response: Are humans products of nature? Yes or no?
My orthodontist, dentist, surgeon, etc, all would probably say something
to the effect that our origins are of course natural and we remain
subject to natural law, yet, the defining aspect of humanity which
differentiates us from the rest of Mammalia is our culture, and the
extended time spent learning it and being psychologically and
behaviourally shaped by the time spent learning that culture.
Seems like so many on the left want to portray humans as something
alien to life on Earth, beings who behave contrary to the intent of
nature. In fact, we are animals, pure and simple, constrained to
behave as nature intended for the good of our species. You can
acknowledge this fact but you can't run from it.
We actually appear to be rushing headlong into a manmade global
catastrophe. See also "carrying capacity" and "peak oil". We aren't
constrained to behave for the good of our species, and we certainly have
done no favors to the significant number of species we've driven to
extinction. I couldn't sensibly call precipitating a Mass Extinction to
be behaving as nature intended "for the good of our species". I could
properly call it shortsighted and in fact I will call it both avoidable
and stupid.
And I do believe this discussion is germain to the subject of
Freemasonry. As enlighted self interest is a Masonic tenet.
You can do no good for others if you fail to care for yourself first
and foremost.
Right. Well, I'm over in news:alt.politics.immigration if you feel the
need to carry this discussion further. There are a lot of folks there
who are just as hateful as you are, only they don't like Mexicans
instead of not liking black people.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
18 Jan 2005 11:56:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:19:45 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
We actually appear to be rushing headlong into a manmade global
catastrophe.
Well, folks have been predicting the end of the world for centuries.
30 years ago my high school teachers insisted that by now we'd have
used up every last drop of oil. Teachers are still telling this to
their students. Known oil reserves are predicted to last another 150
years at present rates of consumption.
Right. Well, I'm over in news:alt.politics.immigration if you feel the
need to carry this discussion further.
Ah shucks, I was gonna invite you to visit me in
news:alt.flame.niggers to carry on this conversation. It's been
refreshing since the negroes in AFN are utter dolts and lack the wits
to defend themselves (surprise!).
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: Re: A hymn of love for God's real children |
17 Jan 2005 10:51:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:06:10 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
Vigilante wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:54:58 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
They're not primates, they're not primates, they're not primates...
Didn't I tell you to learn to read, not just every other third word.
If you refer to my post from which you quote, you'll see I refer to
primates and LOWER MAMMALS (such as lions, canids, squirrels).
Damn if you're not gonna read my stuff why should I read and respond
to you?
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vigilante" |
|
| Title: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
16 Jan 2005 10:21:50 AM |
|
|
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
16 Jan 2005 11:29:41 AM |
|
|
Let the debate begin
Let it not you racist scum
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr.Extreme" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
16 Jan 2005 09:23:51 PM |
|
|
HELL YES WE WOULD!!!!!!!
--
THe HNIC has posted, bitches!!
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
Vigilante wrote:
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dex" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
03 Mar 2005 09:26:48 PM |
|
|
Interesting question, could you clarify... If a black person changed their
skin colour, did you envisage that their
kids would then be the new colour? Or would the kids get the opportunity to
make the same choice?
As you might be aware, "people of colour" is merely a metaphor for a group
of people, a social construct.
Colored people is a much more literal description, and one could truthfully
say that everyone is a coloured
person, whether you are a brown-skinned, olive-skinned, healthy pink, green
with envy, sickly grey or ...
Further to that, skin colour is merely an attribute which we have leveraged
to put people into boxes.
Anyone who wants to be in another box will change that attribute to get into
the box.
If my boyfriend liked blondes, I might dye my hair blonde to fall into his
favoured box!!
"Vigilante" <we.ride@night.now> wrote in message
news:225lu01jgk7pmbiks1vkv62q5qsbgdlo3v@4ax.com...
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
| User: "jlruble" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
04 Mar 2005 03:10:12 PM |
|
|
"Dex" <Dex@Dex.de> wrote in message
news:cAQVd.41198$kz6.783054@news20.bellglobal.com...
Interesting question, could you clarify... If a black person changed their
skin colour, did you envisage that their
kids would then be the new colour? Or would the kids get the opportunity
to
make the same choice?
As you might be aware, "people of colour" is merely a metaphor for a group
of people, a social construct.
Colored people is a much more literal description, and one could
truthfully
say that everyone is a coloured
person, whether you are a brown-skinned, olive-skinned, healthy pink,
green
with envy, sickly grey or ...
Further to that, skin colour is merely an attribute which we have
leveraged
to put people into boxes.
Anyone who wants to be in another box will change that attribute to get
into
the box.
If my boyfriend liked blondes, I might dye my hair blonde to fall into his
favoured box!!
"Vigilante" <we.ride@night.now> wrote in message
news:225lu01jgk7pmbiks1vkv62q5qsbgdlo3v@4ax.com...
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
Why not ask Michael Jackson?
SCOTTY
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
04 Mar 2005 08:10:15 PM |
|
|
Let me start by saying that since the original people of the earth were
the people of darker tones, a "colored" person would have most likely
been a person whose appearance was different from that of the original
people. History teaches us that the caucasian species is only about a
little more than 6,000 years old having been given that name from the
caucasus mountains of Europe where it is a well known fact that western
civilization has it's origins. You speak of the Black Man here in
America as if you are above him when in fact you are here because of
him. You came from him. You are his lowest desires clothed in flesh.
You are a grafted people. A weak germ extracted from him. Before, your
kind were walking on all fours, living in caves eating the raw flesh of
animals (which you still do today). It amazes me how you can fix your
mouth to speak such garbage. You are nothing more than a race of
thieves created to be destroyed. Cave-dwellers who have been loosed to
create mischief. To sit here and even talk about the Black Man this way
is a travesty on your part, you should be kissing his feet for the time
you have left.
Dex wrote:
Interesting question, could you clarify... If a black person changed
their
skin colour, did you envisage that their
kids would then be the new colour? Or would the kids get the
opportunity to
make the same choice?
As you might be aware, "people of colour" is merely a metaphor for a
group
of people, a social construct.
Colored people is a much more literal description, and one could
truthfully
say that everyone is a coloured
person, whether you are a brown-skinned, olive-skinned, healthy pink,
green
with envy, sickly grey or ...
Further to that, skin colour is merely an attribute which we have
leveraged
to put people into boxes.
Anyone who wants to be in another box will change that attribute to
get into
the box.
If my boyfriend liked blondes, I might dye my hair blonde to fall
into his
favoured box!!
"Vigilante" <we.ride@night.now> wrote in message
news:225lu01jgk7pmbiks1vkv62q5qsbgdlo3v@4ax.com...
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
04 Mar 2005 09:07:05 PM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2005 18:10:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, spake thusly:
Let me start by saying that since the original people of the earth were
the people of darker tones, a "colored" person would have most likely
been a person whose appearance was different from that of the original
people.
Let me guess... you're black? :)
History teaches us that the caucasian species is only about a
little more than 6,000 years old having been given that name from the
caucasus mountains of Europe where it is a well known fact that western
civilization has it's origins.
Then your history is wrong, as it is many times, since
man has only been here about 6,000 years.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
04 Mar 2005 10:36:18 PM |
|
|
In article <ub8i21teeop9vh49u267v4p8lv3t2o9n6s@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2005 18:10:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, spake thusly:
Let me start by saying that since the original people of the earth were
the people of darker tones, a "colored" person would have most likely
been a person whose appearance was different from that of the original
people.
Let me guess... you're black? :)
History teaches us that the caucasian species is only about a
little more than 6,000 years old having been given that name from the
caucasus mountains of Europe where it is a well known fact that western
civilization has it's origins.
Then your history is wrong, as it is many times, since
man has only been here about 6,000 years.
And how does Andrew justify that particular statement? GodDidIt?
Scientific estimates of the age of homo sapiens run from about 150,000
years to 1,800,000 years, with most being about half a million years.
Does Andrew have any evidence by which to refute these scientific
estimates? I presume not.
See, for example:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
04 Mar 2005 08:07:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:26:48 -0500, "Dex" <Dex@Dex.de> wrote:
Interesting question, could you clarify... If a black person changed their
skin colour, did you envisage that their
kids would then be the new colour? Or would the kids get the opportunity to
make the same choice?
As you might be aware, "people of colour" is merely a metaphor for a group
of people, a social construct.
Colored people is a much more literal description, and one could truthfully
say that everyone is a coloured
person, whether you are a brown-skinned, olive-skinned, healthy pink, green
with envy, sickly grey or ...
Further to that, skin colour is merely an attribute which we have leveraged
to put people into boxes.
Anyone who wants to be in another box will change that attribute to get into
the box.
If my boyfriend liked blondes, I might dye my hair blonde to fall into his
favoured box!!
"Vigilante" <we.ride@night.now> wrote in message
news:225lu01jgk7pmbiks1vkv62q5qsbgdlo3v@4ax.com...
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
It intrigues me that even a racist human could love a dog or cat of
any colour or origin, but would sort (and rate) other humans by colour
rather than behaviour.
(European spelling used - for no particular reason at all)
If you and I met and we truly loved, I wouldn't care; would you?
drift
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chadwick Stone©" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
03 Mar 2005 10:50:25 PM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: YES
Dex has offered into testimony
cAQVd.41198$kz6.783054@news20.bellglobal.com
Interesting question, could you clarify... If a black
person changed their skin colour, did you envisage that
their kids would then be the new colour? Or would the kids get
the opportunity to make the same choice?
If Michael Jackson is any indication, they would get the opportunity to go
to prison for pedophilia.
--
Chadwick Stone©
Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet©
"No longer anonymous but still immune"
Usenet's most helpful netizen
SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
Skepticult® ID: 581-00504-208
A mean and nasty *****
I am the New World Order
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hell With Niggs" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
04 Mar 2005 05:03:57 AM |
|
|
"Chadwick Stone©" <m0rphed@m0rphed.m0rphed> wrote in message
news:lORVd.190816$Zm5.24599@news.easynews.com...
: X-No-Archive: YES
: Dex has offered into testimony
: cAQVd.41198$kz6.783054@news20.bellglobal.com
:
: > Interesting question, could you clarify... If a black
: > person changed their skin colour, did you envisage that
: > their kids would then be the new colour? Or would the kids get
: > the opportunity to make the same choice?
:
: If Michael Jackson is any indication, they would get the opportunity to go
: to prison for pedophilia.
:
: --
I hope they lock him up for a very LONG time!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nigger News Service" |
|
| Title: Re: If negroes could change their skin color, would they? |
16 Jan 2005 10:39:27 AM |
|
|
No doubt some would change their skin color -- probably mostly black
conservatives who are (rightly) ashamed of their background. The remainder
would be radical pseudo-academics in "black studies" departments who would
then write articles about how they were FORCED to bleach their skin to fit
in with mainstream society. (These are the same folks who write articles
about the "politics" of black women's hair.)
Others would keep it, because it makes them feel special and gives them
privileges they wouldn't have if they were white. Some probably just enjoy
the drama of media hissy fits when someone suspects that a waitress at some
cheesy chain restaurant might not be serving certain customers just because
they're black. We know niggers love drama! (As long as the story line
doesn't get too complex.)
The changers, the keepers, and the Whites would all remain racist because we
all know that TNB is more than skin deep. A bleached-out ***** is still a
***** and will still act like one.
NNS
"Vigilante" <we.ride@night.now> wrote in message
news:225lu01jgk7pmbiks1vkv62q5qsbgdlo3v@4ax.com...
And those who chose to do so, would they be racist?
Are people of color, colored people?
Let the debate begin
3-7-77
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
