Why Democrats (Liberals) Piss Me Off - Page 4 - Hip Forums
Hip Forums Advertise on the Hip Forums   Click to Chat
Hip Forums Home Register Forum Options Mark Forums Read Social Groups Hip Universe Hip Radio Chat Room

Thread Title Search    
User's Login
User Name
Password
Remember Me?
Buy Music Posters at AllPosters
Hip Shops
Latest Videos
Active Journals


Forum Description: Discuss local and world politics and how it affects us. This political forum is for members only!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-29-2005, 02:51 PM   #31
Balbus
Super Moderator
 
Balbus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 6,741
Balbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the rough
Like this post? Yes | No    


It would seems LSD is having a tantrum (oh bless) he is stamping his foot and saying huffily that he will not play with me. Which he seems to believe, rather amusingly, to be a sign of maturity.
Well that is his privilege.

But it doesn’t hid the fact that he still isn’t telling us what he means by ‘racial differences’

**

Yes he has given us a link but as he makes clear this is not to explain what he means by ‘racial differences’ but to back up his claim that ‘the left’ deny that there is such a thing as ‘racial differences’.

So let us take a closer look at the link.

It seems to be mainly based on the article -


Race is a Myth?
The left distorts science for political purposes. by Michael Rienzi (by the way Michael Rienzi, is a pseudonym)


So I had a look at that

Mr Rienzi’s argument seems to be that the small amount of difference between humans is very important he even says -

It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes "makes no difference."

this is mean to back up just how important the difference is, although I am at a loss to know why this should "give pause" the comparison is completely mad.

He later goes on to explain that although racial differences are important it first has to be remembered that -

"no scientists talk about "pure" races. What does racial "purity" mean, anyway? It is true that certain populations are more genetically differentiated and distinct than are other more hybridized groups."

So although we are ‘different’ none of us it seems is pure which makes you wonder why the small amount of difference is so important?

He tries to explain –

The English, for example, are a predominantly Nordic population made up of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans/Vikings, Romans, and possibly early Mediterraneans. Many European groups are similarly composed of multiple related strains; if having an ancestry of different but relatively similar European groups makes someone a "mongrel," then indeed we are all mongrels.

(Well that reads a lot like my post earlier in this thread)

But then he qualifies things

"But this does not invalidate in any way the concept of race, or the fact that the various "mongrel" populations are still genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other and thus are separate races."


Why? He tries to explain -
The "we are all mongrels" arguments fails in two ways. First, the various stocks that have gone into producing many of today's ethnic groups were relatively similar to each other, so it stretches the definition of the word to call them "mongrels." How different were the Anglo-Saxons from the Celts? Likewise, would a person of mixed English and German ancestry be considered a "mongrel?" French-Italian?

This is bollocks

Think about it a while

Why are people in the European region mainly made up of a mixture of Europeans and people in the Asian region mainly made up of a mixture of Asian people and where the two regions meet up they are a mixture of both. The thing is what Mr Rienzi is only highlighting is that when humans come together they have a habit of breeding with each other. Travel was not so easy right up to the 19th century, so Europeans mainly bread with other Europeans (even if they sometimes travelling from Norway to Sicily to do so). The thing is that when humans get the chance they breed with all the other people they meet up with as did the Romans, Vikings, Hun, Mongols and Zulus. The Roman soldiers on the frontiers took ‘native’ wives, Scandinavians (remember the Normans in France) conquered and took native wives (or raped the local women) etc etc.

From Europe later Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French and British adventures and colonists took native wives (or raped the local women) in places further afield as their empires grew.

He asks "Do we call the millions of white Americans of mixed European stock "mongrels?"

Well I would ask why not, I’m a European and I’m happy with my Celt, Norman, Nordic ancestry and if I happened to have any Zulu or Mongol blood in me I’d be proud of that too.

"Second, mixtures of related stocks can stabilize over time, and form a new, unique, and separate ethnic group, race, or breed. Such is the case with the various European ethnic groups, formed by mixtures of related ethnic strains. Europeans could be bred for hundreds–perhaps thousands–of generations without producing offspring that look like Africans or Asians. The reverse is also true. Even if today's races are the result of ancient mixtures the mixtures are distinct and extremely stable."


Again bollocks, that’s like saying if the Celts hadn’t breed with the Scandinavians, then the Celts wouldn’t have so many cases of blond hair or blue eyes, it is true but was it a disaster that they did interbreed? People from Europe, Africa and Asia have been interbreeding for centuries along the periphery. The thing is that when groups from differing racial groups are put together there will be a certain amount of inbreeding even if there is an artificial taboo in place it may be smaller but it will still take place.

If people of European descent can be convinced that race does not exist, in particular that their race does not really exist, there will be no resistance to the displacement of whites by the forces currently at work in America, Europe, and elsewhere.

What ‘forces’? I can only think he means the urge to breed?

People will not defend something they have been convinced is not real.


Defend what?

If–against their own instincts and the clear evidence of their senses–whites can be made to think race is an illusion they can have no reason to oppose across-the-board integration, miscegenation, and massive non-white immigration.

If whites are mixing with and being displaced by people who are really no different from themselves nothing is being lost.

What is being ‘lost’? What are these "instincts" and "clear evidence"?

Nor in the vast majority of cases is there the slightest disagreement about who belongs in which race.

But we are all humans, yes? We are slightly different but if Mr Rienzi doesn’t see much wrong with a Scandinavian breeding with a Celt, and agrees that this kind of racial mixing is the norm. What is his problem?

**

This last bit I think is just bizarre

Children can distinguish race unerringly by the age of two or three. Nature is parsimonious and does not often endow its creatures with senses to distinguish things that do not matter.An inborn ability, acquired at a very early age, of who are "our people" and who are not is essential to group survival.

Any attempt to override or downplay that ability is a direct attack on the group itself.

It seems to be saying that children should be taught to see other children that are different in looks or skin colour from their own as a threat and that parents that don’t teach their children this are a threat to the ‘group’.



**
__________________







Balbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 02:56 PM   #32
Balbus
Super Moderator
 
Balbus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 6,741
Balbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the rough
Like this post? Yes | No    

**

So the things LSD wants us to look at are basically racist gibberish that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

The question that then comes to mind is if LSD’s arguments are equally weak and it is for that reason that he is so unwilling to debate not the many excuse he has put forward?

**
__________________







Balbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 04:20 PM   #33
Balbus
Super Moderator
 
Balbus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 6,741
Balbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the rough
Like this post? Yes | No    

What we seem to have is a disagreement over the importance and relevance of race and the interbreeding of differing racial and ethnic threads of the human race.

**

Some people like Mr Rienzi seem to feel that interbreeding is wrong but for what reasons he seem confused and irrational.

He agree that interbreeding has been going on for thousands, tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands years.

So people who think like him must also agree that there isn’t a ‘pure’ breed of human and so the idea of trying to preserve racial purity is silly.

Yet that is in essence what he and they seem to be advocating.

Rienzi seems to be saying that ‘white Europeans’ should preserve their ‘race’ by not breeding with other ‘races’.

But who are the ‘white Europeans’ and what is this ‘purity’ meant to preserve?
__________________







Balbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 06:55 PM   #34
LSDSeeker
Member
 
LSDSeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 368
LSDSeeker is on a distinguished road
Like this post? Yes | No    

Quote:
Originally Posted by LickHERish
Ill pass on the LSD thanks.
You should take some before posting. It seems like you are locked in very dogmatic views.

Quote:
As for your notion about race distinctions. I suggest if you wish bolster an argument on a scientific basis, you link to articles from less ideologically charged sites. Perhaps something along the lines of peer reviewed scientific journals would lend your argument greater credence.
I was not trying to "bolster an argument on a scientific basis." Unlike you, I know a little about Mr. Francis, and one thing he is not is a scientist. Nor is he a neoconservative, although he may have some sympathies with the Christian Right. I linked to him to show a member of this Web site that there is in fact a debate going on about whether race is a valid biological concept. While I do not agree with much of what Mr. Francis wrote, I found the article for the most part agreeable.

There was nothing "scientific" about Mr. Francis's article.
LSDSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 07:00 PM   #35
LSDSeeker
Member
 
LSDSeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 368
LSDSeeker is on a distinguished road
Like this post? Yes | No    

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
So the things LSD wants us to look at are basically racist gibberish that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.
I don't know how the hell you ever became a "super moderator." As if your writing weren't bad enough (geez!), you have a really bad attitude to boot.
LSDSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 07:34 PM   #36
LSDSeeker
Member
 
LSDSeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 368
LSDSeeker is on a distinguished road
Like this post? Yes | No    

I guess I like to play devil's advocate on occasion. I just can't stand conformity and people who behave in stereotypical ways. I see that all too often in this forum. I don't care what some hippy says about the corporate world and whatnot, but if the hippy looks and behaves like other hippies there is, in my view, a problem. The same goes for leftists, conservatives, neo-Nazis, etc.

By the way, I did not appreciate how this thread deteriorated from a critique of liberalism to insinuations that I was a neo-Nazi, or had Nazi sympathies. On to the topic of Nazis, my first impression when I saw the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) cited was "oh, gosh, not those fanatics!" But I am starting to believe that groups like the SPLC and the ADL, among other so-called leftist watchdog groups, serve a positive social function, even if it is not so obvious.

The truth is, during the 20th century there were all kinds of atrocities committed against people over stupid things like their ethnicity or nationality. Even today, it's frightening to see what is written by certain neo-Nazis, who clearly are driven by an irrational hatred of other races and like many of the leftists they criticize prefer to avoid open debate. There is a reason why the vast majority of intellectuals are opposed to and even ridicule the neo-Nazis. There just aren't many intelligent neo-Nazis, and of those who are, they tend to be somewhat balmy.

So, overall, my view of human nature remains somewhat positive, or at least less cynical than it used to be. Still, my conscience forces me to question the more absurd beliefs of some liberals, especially when it comes to race.
LSDSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 07:44 PM   #37
FNA
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 555
FNA is on a distinguished road
Like this post? Yes | No    

Very true, except this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSDSeeker
They like to attack the character of their opponents (using moral rhetoric) rather than debate the issues (using the labels just mentioned).
That sounds more like, ummmm, every campaign I've ever seen. I think the democrats are a little better at avoiding the low blows though. But, hey, they are all the same. It really wouldn't make much of a difference if the democrats controlled. They would just do things a little differently. The reason people pick on The Bush Admin. so muchis because they are so blatantly decietful. People call it fashionable. But the Admin. makes it so easy to pick up on, it's really just people being pissed off for the insult on their intelligence. That's what happens whenever Bush or Rumsfeld talks publicly. They are insulted everyone's intelligence, and also saying "This is what I say, and if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?" So, what are you going to do about it. If you think the democrats will save you, think again. They have their agendas too, and they can be just as underhanded.

Really, until there are more than two parties for you to vote for, political parties will just be a big joke. It's symbolic of a time when there actually was representation of the people.
__________________
You want to be famous, and rich, and happy, but you're terrified you have nothing to offer this world, nothing to say, and no way to say it.....but you can say it in three languages.....
FNA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 10:27 PM   #38
LSDSeeker
Member
 
LSDSeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 368
LSDSeeker is on a distinguished road
Like this post? Yes | No    

Quote:
Originally Posted by FNA
I think the democrats are a little better at avoiding the low blows though.
The left seems much more open-minded than the right to me. I can voice my views and for the most part the counterculture types, who are overwhelmingly of a leftist persuasion, are civil and level-headed (there are exceptions, of course). On the other hand, in right-wing forums I find people to be more judgmental (or openly so).

The right has too many hang-ups about sex, drugs, and how a person should live life. Leftists support more individuality in their own ways. If you do not conform to middle class, stereotypical ways, the right is more likely to brand you as pathological in some way. I can just imagine some conservatives going to some hippy festivals and decrying the "degeneracy" and "freaks," when the truth is that hippies have a lot in common with the way Jesus lived, and many of them are very pleasant to be around and talk with. On the other hand, many conservatives are materialistic and neurotic.

My gripe against liberals mostly revolves around what people refer to as "political correctness." It has been argued that it serves a social function by bringing about more peace between groups and in particular protecting minorities, but there are cases when it just goes over the line, in my view.
LSDSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 02:23 PM   #39
Balbus
Super Moderator
 
Balbus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 6,741
Balbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the roughBalbus is a jewel in the rough
Like this post? Yes | No    

**



I remember someone who came to the forum who would argue that the poor and minorities should stop complain about their problems and do some hard work. In his viewpoint it was laziness that was their main problem and if they studied hard or worked hard they would succeed.

The thing was that the more the person posted the more it became clear that they were the lazy one. They would cut and paste or link to articles that they said backed up their claims but it became clear quickly they had not read them and had little knowledge of the content (some amusingly even contradicted their position). They were very strong on assertion but the statements were only based on prejudice and ignorance, which could be easily refuted and even they would have found false if they had bothered to do a little work.

When eventually confronted by his laziness he ended up agreeing that he was lazy, yes he believed others should work hard but that didn’t mean he had to do any.

He wasn’t the only one but he was the most candid usually such people make excuses about why they cannot explain their views, I swear one day one of these lazy bugger’s going to say that they would reply but their dog eat their homework.

**

LSD was asked to explain what he meant by ‘racial differences’ and what the left denied about it way back at the beginning of the thread.

His reply only reiterated the same claims without any explanation.

He then went on to say that his reason for holding back was that he wanted to spare the feelings of some unspecified people.

Still later he claimed that he would give an explanation but only if people asked him politely

Then the reason for making no comment had something to do with the maturity of those asking.

He then without having given any reason or explanation claimed again that the left denied the existence of race. The same unsubstantiated claim being expressed all over again.

In fact the only thing that gives any indication of LSD’s views is a link to some racist gibberish.

He then says that his “conscience forces me to question the more absurd beliefs of some liberals, especially when it comes to race.” It is a pity his conscience isn’t strong enough to do the job of telling us what these ‘absurd beliefs’ are and what actually makes them absurd.

He tells us his “gripe against liberals mostly revolves around what people refer to as "political correctness." It has been argued that it serves a social function by bringing about more peace between groups and in particular protecting minorities, but there are cases when it just goes over the line, in my view.

In his view? What view? I mean if you actually look at what he’s actually said about race he doesn’t have a view or not one he is willing to express in public.

I’m beginning to think that the reality is he doesn’t have a viewpoint, I mean that would take some effort on his part a bit of study and thought, and he might not be up to that.

**


So since Mr LSD is too lazy to explain his views we will have to look at this issue in more general terms. Not of the person that brought the issue up but the ideas that person seems to be passing on from elsewhere since all the things hinted at by LSD are common slurs or slogans amongst some political groups.

The thing is that so often a genuine concern about oppression or discrimination and a desire to combat it is classified as ‘political correctness’ by those that don’t care about the oppression or discrimination or even support it.

And that can be the problem some that use it are attacking only some of the methods to bring about more racial tolerance others can actually be racists.

However people with a rational viewpoint usually are happy to express it while the racist who is hiding behind the ‘political correctness’ slur might be more circumspect and so it may be possible to distinguish between them this way.

I will post more later as I have to go now, baby calls.

**
__________________







Balbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 06:32 PM   #40
LSDSeeker
Member
 
LSDSeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 368
LSDSeeker is on a distinguished road
Like this post? Yes | No    

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
LSD was asked to explain what he meant by ‘racial differences’ and what the left denied about it way back at the beginning of the thread.
I seriously doubt anyone is reading every single word you write, because your posts are too long and with little substance. It is well established netiquette to keep your posts concise so as to not clog threads or bore readers. As if that were not enough, you are barely even literate, which should embarrass the other Britons who post here.

There have been complaints against you in the past, and you have not learned or modified your behavior since then.

Why are you even a moderator? A moderator is supposed to be gentlemanly and more objective than most participants.

Your post, again, was full of nonsense. You claim that there is no debate about whether race is a valid biological concept, with the left largely taking the position in academia that race does not exist (at least among humans).

Racial differences are shown in many ways: body dimensions, susceptibility to diseases, to some degree in different talents (for example, most top sprinters are of West African descent). Those who argue that race does not exist point out that there is overlap, largely due to racial admixture over the course of history. There is controversy over whether the races differ psychologically, which is not something I am particularly concerned with, since there is plenty of overlap anyway among the races and since environment is a strong shaper of psychology.

But as I said before, you really are not qualified for a serious discussion on these and other issues, and you ought to be replaced as "super moderator" by someone who can write in standard English, for the sake of the forum.
LSDSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM.

The Hip Forums are intended for mature audiences for entertainment and educational purposes only. Hip Inc. doesn't encourage anyone to break laws, so know the law where you live. You are solely responsible for your actions on this site and illegal activities will be not be tolerated here.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Hip Inc. 1996-Forever!