>> ^Jinx:

>> ^kir_mokum:
i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.

Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.
Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.


I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).

>> ^kir_mokum:

i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.


Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.

Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.

i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

Liberal "education" = thoughtless indoctrination. There's no one-way valve on racism, liberals. Per Doctor King, I'm judging by the content of this fellow's character, not his race. But since liberals are OBSESSED with race it must be addressed. Not only is this clown rude, loud, threatening and out of line, he's also ignorant about the worldwide history of slavery and assuredly was never a slave himself. He has a right to feel the way he does, but not threaten even abstract violence.

@Boise_Lib isn't suggesting genocide of another race "racially insensitive"?

i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

Conquest is a bit of a strange beast. On one hand you can extrapolate Sagemind's argument and say that we should respect the wishes of the existing indigenous population. But then on the other, what if another population of humans had existed before the Native Indians, shouldn't it be their land because they were there first?

That was the case in NZ, the country was colonized by the British and a great deal of the native land was taken for the Commonwealth. However the Maori's took a portion of NZ (the Chattham Islands) from an earlier tribe, the Moriori's - by pretty much butchering them, and keeping the prisoners captive and disallowing them to mate with each other so the race has dwindled out.

Was it ok for the Maori's to do that at the time because they didn't have the in depth written philosophy of ethics and morality that is available to us today. Is it worse that the European-Americans do this to the Indian tribes now that we have a better understanding of right and wrong available to us?

I know what seems right to me, but examining this argument in the context of history really muddies things up a lot.

As an example of why I don't think John (Fire) Lame Deer's argument can be used at face value is that while the native Americans may have had a fantastic and peaceful lifestyle a lot of the time, they killed and scalped their enemies and also appeared to have a really low life expectancy. Also, would the Native American's have done the same to Europeans if the roles were reversed? There were hundreds of Native American tribes, should they all be considered equally?

To remedy the destruction of their way of life what should be done? Should all Europeans leave America, (and every settler in every country for that matter). This is the only thing that would begin to give them complete autonomy the way they used to have it. Should we say "what's done is done" and try to make better decisions moving forward?

Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly.


Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?

So, 4% plus 54% of gay sympathizers equals 58%, does THAT make THAT right?



EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population.

The Winners write the history. Mexicans are the result of Spain conquering Mestizo Indians, so you can take this silly 'blame game' back to the Stone Age if you want.

This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

I don't disagree, but bad people are typically not a nation's majority here or anywhere else. In America one is free to leave any time and I doubt one can find a better country.














>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.



Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly. Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?
EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population. This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.




Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly. Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?

EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population. This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

Well hey. Listen, its private property and they can do what they want. Who's business is it what they do on their land they stole from the indigenous peoples?

But for real, a hunting ranch called 'N-head'.

Yep, fascist assholes.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but infinite growth is simply not possible, nor is it desirable. For economic growth you need demographic growth (just look at how EU keeps sucking in immigrants to counterbalance the non-renewing fertility rate... it's definitely not out of kindness of heart). More people = more mouths to feed, but also exchanging cultivated land for inhabited land. Moreover, even if we manage to have 100% renewable power, much of the material we use (metals, gases, etc) are of a finite nature and rapidly depleting. Recycling is great, but can never be 100% effective, and even if it could, there are elements (think helium) that once they're gone they're gone, basta.

In the long run, we can only have a sustainable society if the growth imperative is scratched out of our mentality.

>> ^artician:

>> ^hpqp:
As long as our society is built around the imperative of growth (economic, demographic), we will continue to irretrievably destroy ourselves. The equation is simple: infinite possibility for growth - finite resources = self-destruction.

The thing is, renewable resources = infinite resources. I really believe infinite possibility for growth can be sustained, but what we have here is irresponsible growth. It's not growth as much as a viral consumption.
I think the next step is to start getting some names. Company names, shareholder names, CEO names. Find the people responsible for making these decisions, and education or kill them. Wait... what?
Anyway, this will never stop unless you confront individuals directly. It's very rare that indirect opposition (pacifist movements, ghandi/king jr. civil rights) works. So rare that I've given up on it for such dire circumstances.
Dear America: still feeling all that white guilt from the complete genocide of several hundred thousand indigenous natives on the norther continent? Well it's still happening right now. Now's your chance to make up for it.

>> ^hpqp:

As long as our society is built around the imperative of growth (economic, demographic), we will continue to irretrievably destroy ourselves. The equation is simple: infinite possibility for growth - finite resources = self-destruction.


The thing is, renewable resources = infinite resources. I really believe infinite possibility for growth can be sustained, but what we have here is irresponsible growth. It's not growth as much as a viral consumption.

I think the next step is to start getting some names. Company names, shareholder names, CEO names. Find the people responsible for making these decisions, and education or kill them. Wait... what?
Anyway, this will never stop unless you confront individuals directly. It's very rare that indirect opposition (pacifist movements, ghandi/king jr. civil rights) works. So rare that I've given up on it for such dire circumstances.

Dear America: still feeling all that white guilt from the complete genocide of several hundred thousand indigenous natives on the norther continent? Well it's still happening right now. Now's your chance to make up for it.

My father was catholic, my mother was Church of England (I believe it’s called Anglican now). I was taken to Sunday school as a child and then invited to religious teachings in 3rd / 4th grade, in which I took part.
There was one week that we learned about Noah’s ark, and of marsupials (animals indigenous to south-east Asia, more so to AU – NZ). I raised the question about whether he had to pickup / come back and deliver these animals after the floods. I was suspended from school from this exchange (one of several exchanges). Afterwards, I was put in the non-Christian/Catholic/Anglican group ... which had to be put in the school library during this weekly religious teaching (about 40 minutes).

I couldn’t be more thankful of being punted to the library today. The wealth of knowledge I gained was extraordinary and I do thank religion for bringing me there. It also made me read the bible cover to cover and made me the atheist I am today.

I do also wish my fellow atheist brothers and sisters thanks, for thier constant display and thirst for knowledge.

Regards,

ZappaDanMan

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Seriously blankie, what's with the hostility? Forgive me for just this once talking like a normal person and saying "all" when I should've said "disproportionately."

I was mostly just asking about whether you thought immigrants were a special class of people with different demographics than the indigenous population, because I don't see the how you link immigration to the solvency of a social safety net unless you presuppose that immigrants are either going to be disproportionately poor, or disproportionately likely to commit some form of fraud (tax or entitlement).

>> ^blankfist:
It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?
It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?


So here's the part where I walk on eggshells and gently point out that you do seem to be saying that immigrants will be disproportionately likely to be poor or commit fraud.

You're also tossing in that you think native born citizens will be that way too. If that's the case, then we're back to "so what does immigration have to do with anything?"


Let's say we turned America into a Finnish-style welfare state -- taxes are high, infrastructure is modern and in good repair, our public schools are the best in the world, our health care system is both cost effective and provides quality care, unemployment is low, our budget is in surplus, our unemployment benefits are generous (and have no time limit), and we have a growing private sector with a heavy technology focus.

If we then threw the gates wide open on immigration, I think you're right; most of the people coming here would be poorer than the average American, and at least in the short run, it'd be bad for the government's net fiscal situation -- more people on welfare, without a completely offsetting tax revenue increase.

But over the long run, I think the situation would reverse. The immigrants and their children would get a free, quality education. They'd get first class health care. They'd have access to public transportation, and a healthy jobs market. For the most part, they'd "exploit" the advantages offered to them to bootstrap themselves into a more productive, wealthier, tax-paying lifestyle. In the long run, the state's investments in the human capital of those immigrants would pay dividends that go beyond mere economic growth, it'd also diversify and enrich the culture of their nation, and bring new ideas and different ways of thinking into the shared project of their society.

Which is to say, I don't think immigration poses a fiscal problem for welfare states.

Bigotry on the other hand, that poses a problem for left-wing policies of all kinds. I don't really think that's a strike against the policies of the left though.

Out... of they're fucking minds.

Interesting enough is that the mouse spider (Missulena) looks very similar to Hexathelidae.

United States Funnel weavers: Araneomorph is the most common funnel weaver in the United States, I think.

What's even more interesting is that there isn't a single (known) species of Hexathelidae indigenous to the United States, as far as I can tell from wikipedia. But there's plenty of Latrodectus all over, it's interesting the dispersion of the different spider species.

"It's ours" says the Jewish American Princess who came here a week ago, ahahaha. It's peak season for the Jewish-American hoards here, as if we don't have enough indigenous mindless Patriotism, come summer the states never fail in funneling an endless supply of young morons to come support a cause that isn't theirs, in a country they've never been to, taking sides in a conflict they do not understand.
Bravo Israel, bravo.

These celebrations were so loud they almost disturbed my Team Fortress 2 session, bastards...

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Therefore, rottenseed : I believe Mexican is a nationality, not a race. The race would be Spanish.

Spanish is a nationality. It's pretty easy, really... any descriptor whose base is the name of a nation (Canadian, Iraqi, Mexican, Japanese) is a nationality. American, oddly, is considered a nationality even though America isn't a nation. United Statish probably just sounds too goofy.

Spain's indigenous population is Caucasoid and a whole lot of Mexicans are as well. I've seen the native peoples of Mexico labeled as everything from Australoid to Mongoloid; I'm not sure there's any agreed-upon racial classification there. Of course many of them are also a mix; Mestizo or Zambo.