Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.
test
The Sandbox - DallasThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here
My thoughts exactly. Sounds like white nationalism to me. I would not be surprised if he has an account on Stormfront.
Which, I will say this - there is nothing wrong with being proud of your race. Just remember, when people look at your bones in the grave, they won't be able to tell what color you (or anyone else's) were.
actually they can already use forensics to tell if a skeleton was of a certain race. now. but im not promoting any kind of racisim or anything... just saying they can do that now.
[QUOTE=Duthgar1976;1056952394 they can already use forensics to tell if a skeleton was of a certain race. [/QUOTE]
well yes, but the statement was one can't tell BY LOOKING at the bones what race the person was.. this thread long ago disintegrated, so nitpicking at this stage doesn't seem unwarranted..
actually they can already use forensics to tell if a skeleton was of a certain race. now. but im not promoting any kind of racisim or anything... just saying they can do that now.
True true.
All skeletons are from the human race. There are no aliens among us.
You just repeated your early post for the fourth or fifth time. I quote Einstein for you: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results".
In case you haven't caught that, I am pointing the fact that you contradict yourself.
You say you find that discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity is despicable. ok.
You believe that is is ok for a business to discriminate based on color, race, gender, religion, sexual preference or ethnic background on (I quote you) "on a free and diverse society". You believe it is ok unless there is physycal harm. You explained already ad-nauseum why you believe that those business should be allowed that if they so choose.. You didn't use the word "ok".
So you find it despicable, but you don't think it should be forbidden for a bank to deny a loan, for a bus company to deny service, for a mcdonalds' to deny service , university to accept enrollment, deny a job, based solely on race, religion, gender, ethnicity.
You find it despicable, but you don't think such business owner should be punished by law when they discriminate. You don't believe that minorities should be protected by law.
In case you haven't realized, non-protection of minorities never solved discrimination. Punishment of discriminators have diminished it tremendously.
Your position is essentially hippocratic and racist. This position is consistent with the milder, modern-day ku-klux-klan, the KKK. Yes, they are still active, google it. That is your company. Weather you like it or not, that is the perception you give with your views. I don't need to remind you the train wreck thread you started last year with your "Us and Them" thread. You seem to be the only one that can't see that.
First let's ensure that we're talking about the same things. You accused me of being hippocratic: "of or relating to Hippocrates or to the school of medicine that took his name". I suspect you meant to accuse me of being hypocritical: "not being or expressing what one appears to be or express". I hope we got that straight. Now to the rest of your post:
Attempting to reason with people who are either unwilling or unable to understand logic is especially trying. So it is in discussing this matter with you. Pulling out tired and overused sayings to try to discredit a valid argument is only one of the many logical fallacies you commit. I sometimes diagram people's fallacies in the hope that they will better understand why their arguments are flawed. But in your case it would be a wasted effort.
You accuse me of repetition, when you've put forth the identical tiresome and flawed argument ad nauseam. You accuse me of being bigoted for being tolerant, a trait you seem incapable of displaying or even understanding.
Tolerance, "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with", is exactly why I can have a specific set of values, and at the same time accept that there are people who disagree with me.
You also seem incapable of understanding the concept of "freedom of contract", wherein a person retains the rights to the fruits of his labor, and can choose to share or sell those fruits to whomever he chooses.
You're incapable of understanding a free market system, wherein a need will be met, if not by some person who is biased against you, then by someone else.
Enacting a law that requires a person to sell you a cake or take your photograph is about as intolerant as things can get. And so it is with laws that try to socially-engineer human behavior.
well yes, but the statement was one can't tell BY LOOKING at the bones what race the person was.. this thread long ago disintegrated, so nitpicking at this stage doesn't seem unwarranted..
First let's ensure that we're talking about the same things. You accused me of being hippocratic: "of or relating to Hippocrates or to the school of medicine that took his name". I suspect you meant to accuse me of being hypocritical: "not being or expressing what one appears to be or express". I hope we got that straight. Now to the rest of your post:
Attempting to reason with people who are either unwilling or unable to understand logic is especially trying. So it is in discussing this matter with you. Pulling out tired and overused sayings to try to discredit a valid argument is only one of the many logical fallacies you commit. I sometimes diagram people's fallacies in the hope that they will better understand why their arguments are flawed. But in your case it would be a wasted effort.
You accuse me of repetition, when you've put forth the identical tiresome and flawed argument ad nauseam. You accuse me of being bigoted for being tolerant, a trait you seem incapable of displaying or even understanding.
Tolerance, "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with", is exactly why I can have a specific set of values, and at the same time accept that there are people who disagree with me.
You also seem incapable of understanding the concept of "freedom of contract", wherein a person retains the rights to the fruits of his labor, and can choose to share or sell those fruits to whomever he chooses.
You're incapable of understanding a free market system, wherein a need will be met, if not by some person who is biased against you, then by someone else.
Enacting a law that requires a person to sell you a cake or take your photograph is about as intolerant as things can get. And so it is with laws that try to socially-engineer human behavior.
In a way it's sad that you can't see that.
Most people here sees you for what you are.
You should have stuck with your new year resolution.
First let's ensure that we're talking about the same things. You accused me of being hippocratic: "of or relating to Hippocrates or to the school of medicine that took his name". I suspect you meant to accuse me of being hypocritical: "not being or expressing what one appears to be or express". I hope we got that straight. Now to the rest of your post:
OH SHIT SON HE SURE GOT YOU FOR USING THE WRONG WORD!! DROPPED SOME DICTIONARY.COM DEFINITIONS ON YOU TOO! BOOM!!!!! TOTALLY JUST VALIDATED HIS ARGUMENT OVER YOURS CAUSE OF ALL THAT CONFUSION IT CAUSED BY USING THE WRONG WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tolerance, "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with", is exactly why I can have a specific set of values, and at the same time accept that there are people who disagree with me.
Enacting a law that requires a person to sell you a cake or take your photograph is about as intolerant as things can get. And so it is with laws that try to socially-engineer human behavior.
