Group pride

Ah, you are an idiot and a jackass I see. At any rate, the distinctions aren’t inherent, most abilities are learned, and most people given similar circumstances will produce similar output. You are clinging to this dumbfuck idea that you are a special snowflake just because you are a white honky cracker.

And they ruin steaks.

Which is the ultimate irony, because only black people order a steak well done. Not being racist, just saying, ask anyone who works in a restaurant. Just like Mexicans always want pineapple on a pizza. It would be like viewing Mexicans as inferior, then ordering pineapple pizza. Hilarious.

Autsider…you wouldn’t eat this? If you say no, then you may as well just go eat some stringy overcooked chicken covered in bbq sauce for all I care.


Gotta love how you’re telling me that groups are non-violent while you’re posting pictures of animal meat (which had to be killed and prepared by a group). I love it when other people unwittingly make my case for me.

Keep telling me how groups are non-violent while eating raw, red, bloody meat that was torn from another living organism. I eat meat too, but I don’t try to bullshit others by pretending living organisms can be non-violent.

1 man can kill an animal without being in a group. Sorry man, you’re wrong again.

1 real man at least. In America at least. I dunno about a pansy European “man”. Maybe it takes a whole group of you over there.

Like in the old Robert Redford movie, “Jeremiah Johnson”. That one dude killed a bear with a knife.

If you concede that an individual man can be violent, then you also concede that groups are violent, since they are made up of individual men.

If anything, groups tend to be more violent - they consume more resources, take up more space, and have more capacity for physical destruction. I explained all of this in my thread I linked.

You’ve got nothing and you know it.

You’re making me think of that serf from Monty Python who screams, “can’t you see the violence that’s inherent in the system!”

One man can be, and some groups can be. But that doesn’t entail that all men and all groups are. Duhhhh

You should get an lsat prep book and just keep doing the games section. It can really help you to see how logical arguments are formed, and how common fallacies can be embedded in simple groups of statements.

Like your reading comprehension is decent, and you can write in complete sentences, but you’re having a lot of trouble making what should be a relatively simple argument. I could do it for you, but I disagree with the argument so I’ll just keep doing my side.

You just seem way too caught up in feelings and how things feel and not so much in how things really are. Can’t emotivism your way out of reality man.

Like print out a copy of that "square of opposition"and just tape it up next to your computer.

Like you say, “one man can be, therefore all groups are”.

You see the problem there?

I was trying to talk to someone about necessity vs possibility the other day because they were asking for philosophy and they got pissy and ran off. But I told them, a lot of people have real trouble with that distinction. And here we are…

I stated my argument here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192770

Still didn’t see you address it.

I’m addressing what you’re saying now. And I did the same in another thread that you abandoned.

I’m not into poetry. I prefer logic and philosophy.

I understand if you don’t want to keep defending your bad logic and philosophy. Its hard. Hell, it’s 5am here. I could just go to sleep.

But you still haven’t even remotely begun to make any sense of the notion that all groups are violent, not with any conventional definitions, nor any sound reasoning. Let alone proving that any ethic or policy should follow from that even if it were somehow granted to be true.

Passion should be the slave of reason. Not the other way around.

Not a special snowflake at all. That’s what your emotions force you to assume. Just interested in reality, that’s all.

You’re a walking and talking and posting contradiction, aren’t ya? You said there are inherent distinctions now you’re saying there aren’t. Next thing is you’re gonna say there are. Then say there aren’t. And so on ad infinitum.

You’re very indignant too. Quite a bit of a victim and a victim sympathizer, aren’t you? Life must be very hard.

Most abilities are learned . . . great stuff. Can a domestic cat learn to be a lion? Or an ape learn to be a human? Why not? You said “most abilities” are learned. Oh, those are not among the most?

You must be a believer in infinites then. Because given “infinite amount of time” which is to say “given sufficient amount of time” anyone can become anything.

But who gives a fuck about that when life is finite?
There are limits to everything. Including limits.

There is such a thing as rate at which a trait is developed and this is different for everyone and it is different for every single trait within a single organism.

You must be very naive to think that anyone can become Usain Bolt given similar circumstances. Usain Bolt must be special, not because of his past (genetics/nature), but because of the circumstances in which he was raised (education/nurture.)

Note that I am not denying the value of nurture. American Africans are better at basketball than African Africans precisely because of better circumstances (because they were enslaved whereas the latter were not lol.) But that does not mean that genetics play no part. Whites can never compete with Blacks in basketball. Nurture can’t change that.

The explanation is whites, especially white heterosexual males, scare the shit out of Jews, and others, and Jews, and other minorities have a lot more power in the western world now than they use to.
They want to make sure whites don’t have any sense of group consciousness or cohesion whatsoever, just in case some of them want to start oppressing others again, and so they can keep their Jewish lobbies, affirmative action, mass immigration and what not going.

I don’t think whites have been much more oppressive of others, than others, and if we have, it’s because we’ve been more politically, economically, scientifically and technologically successful, not more malicious.
If Asians had as much power as we had, rest assured, we’d all be speaking Arabic now and going to mosque…if we still existed, that is.

Just look at Asian warlords like Genghis Kong and Tamerlane, or the Mongols and Turks respectively.
They killed and conquered hundreds of millions of people, including whites, who used to live in central Asia, in places like Kazakhstan, before they were gradually genocided in some places and assimilated in others.

Arabs/Muslims spread their religion and oppressive forms of government all the way from west Africa to Pakistan, to Malaysia and Indonesia, killing pagans, homosexuals and atheists wherever they went, taking millions of slaves, and turning Christians and Jews into slaves and second class citizens, if not downright and outright executing them/forced conversions by the sword.
Arabs/Muslims nearly took over Europe, If it weren’t for Charlemagne, Count Dracula (who has unfortunately been demonized by the media) and a few others, we’d all be speaking Arabic, or Turkish now.
Muslims dominated the Iberian and Balkan peninsulas in Europe for centuries, and in the Anatolian peninsula, which formerly spoke Indo-European languages like Greek and were Orthodox Christians, they still dominate.

Whites have done more to end slavery and spread democracy and liberalism around the world than any other group.
Whites have been a force for good and ill in the world, we’ve done more to advance civilization than others, in recent memory, which can be interpreted as good or bad, overall I’d say it’s probably more of a bad thing to be honest, as I’m somewhat of a Luddite, thou some good has come of it.
History isn’t one sided, it’s multilayered, intricate.

Right/wrong are very subjective, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong in whites taking some pride in their heritage, so long as they don’t get too carried away with it.

You can’t have it both ways, if you say whites are more malicious, cause our culture is bad, or our genes are bad, in all or some ways, if you criticize us for our culture, or our genes, than we should be able to criticize you for your culture, and your genes.
If whites having a monopoly on wealth/power/numbers is a bad thing in white countries, than Jews or Chinamen having monopolies in their respective countries is also bad.
You can not have it both ways.
I think it’s okay to criticize whites for some things, and have that debate, but it’s wrong to have that debate and only have that debate, and to never, ever have a debate over problems with other races and cultures, because it makes whites and their culture alone out to be some sort of great force for evil in the world.
It’s absolutist, simplistic, one sided and very, very SELF SERVING.
It’s SELF SERVING, and I won’t tolerate it.
It’s all too convenient for others races, cultures and their stooges, to say every perceived flaw whites have is their own fault racially or culturally, and every perceived flaw others have is also white peoples fault, and that to even suggest otherwise is tantamount to heresy, bigotry, racism, Nazism, and all the rest of it.
It’s wrong, a double standard and I won’t stand for it.
I can’t stand double standards and I won’t.