White supremacy

[Wikkiwallana]

Person X is fleeing country Y because country Y lacks human rights protections that prevent person X from being persecuted and/or oppressed. Country Z refuses to let person X in, because country Y lacks human rights protections that prevent persecution and/or oppression, thus indicating that person X is likely an uncivilized heathen that will attempt to drag country z down to being as bad as country Y.

If you cannot see the problem with this, the error lies in your head, not those of people who disagree with you.

Edit: further replies:

As far as goole is concerned, this quote doesn't exist, nor does Danny Amay. I'm calling BS. Not that it matters, as real or not, as the existence of opposing bigots does not excuse other bigots.

So you are OK with the London train bombing, the Somali gangs in Minnesota, the riots in Paris, the increase in rapes due to immigrants, the 'no go zones' where real Europeans have to fear walking in?

You are a bizarre and saddening person, you know that?

Immigrants are committing crimes at higher levels than the normal population.

Define "normal population". I'm betting they fit right in if you start looking at things like poverty levels, crappy societal treatment, crappier childhoods, and other sociological and psychological causes of crime.

Looking at the Europe news, it seems much of these immigrant crimes involves people from nations that would be on my 'do not welcome' list. If Somalians are so great, why are they not assimilating well in the culture? Why are Africans rioting in France? They are ungrateful and should be deported.

Wahh, someone who grew up surrounded by violence has trouble adjusting! Wah!

Yes, Somalians are Iraqis, and the other uncivilized immigrants will bring the country down to country Y's standards. Look at the immigrants in London with signs saying the nation will be Islamic and imams preaching hate.

I'm betting they are vastly outnumbered by the immigrants going about their daily lives bothering no one, who simply never make the news due to being boring as toast.

The goal is Eurabia.

If they wanted a place just like the oppressive shithole they came from, why would they leave in the first place?

[Wikkiwallana]

Supremacy implies your race is above all other races. That's where we have the issue.

Well if there wasn't evidence of this, why would there be millions of them?

The same reasons there are millions of people who believe in Homeopathy: humans are not rational beings by nature, it is a learned behavior and we have been doing a very shitty job of teaching it.

Edit: further replies:

Well if you don't believe it, it doesn't make it a lie.

Scientific evidence shows the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years old.

This does not correspond with Christian Young-Earth creationist claims that it is a mere 6,000 years old.

The science is objective and has been proven many times. It is not a lie.

The creation story is a lie, and yet people believe. Argumentum ad populum.

If we judged a food's deliciousness by how many organisms consumed it, feces would rank up as the most delicious of foods.

Sunlight and seawater cocktails would have it beat by miles.

[Disserbia]

No true Christian.

Was that directed at me, or him?

If it was at me, please clarify what error you found in my post.

It was not directed at you.

[Rheinlander]

The point is, there's scientific evidence for a lot of things.

The scientific evidence you've posted so far has been proven to be, as more polite men would say it, "a load of bunk". Post some credible evidence of white supremacy - that hasn't been disproven - and we'll start talking.

Something being Censored and pushed to the bottom doesn't mean being disproven.

Racial Science is always censored, the fact is, if something isn't considered politically correct, it won't see the light of day, and if it does, it's only to attack the group or people saying it.

For instance, we can pick and choose which "old guys" we listen to, like Darwin:

"In establishing a sole human species, Darwin contrasted the "civilized races" with the "savage races"; like most of his contemporaries — except the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace — he did not distinguish "biological race" from "cultural race". Moreover, beyond the biology, he noted that savage races risked extinction more from white European colonialism, than from evolutionary inadequacy"

To whom was Darwin refering to, as Savage?

Who were the victims of "white european colonialism" Whoever they are, Darwin likes to think they're savages.

[Agymnum]

The scientific evidence you've posted so far has been proven to be, as more polite men would say it, "a load of bunk". Post some credible evidence of white supremacy - that hasn't been disproven - and we'll start talking.

Something being Censored and pushed to the bottom doesn't mean being disproven.

Racial Science is always censored, the fact is, if something isn't considered politically correct, it won't see the light of day, and if it does, it's only to attack the group or people saying it.

For instance, we can pick and choose which "old guys" we listen to, like Darwin:

"In establishing a sole human species, Darwin contrasted the "civilized races" with the "savage races"; like most of his contemporaries — except the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace — he did not distinguish "biological race" from "cultural race". Moreover, beyond the biology, he noted that savage races risked extinction more from white European colonialism, than from evolutionary inadequacy"

To whom was Darwin refering to, as Savage?

Who were the victims of "white european colonialism" Whoever they are, Darwin likes to think they're savages.

We don't obey Darwin's word as the word of God.

Unlike religion, science takes the words of intelligent men and refines them, makes them better.

Racial science is bullshit because we are all human beings - there is almost no discrepancy genetically between races. Racial science is merely a way of legitimizing bullshit beliefs, much like how people claim that women as somehow intellectually inferior to men because HEY SCIENCE SAYS SO.

Science can be abused by those who know how to manipulate it. You're taking part of Darwin's theories which have since been refined and accentuating it as the most important thing he said. Darwin's basis in biology - evolutionary theory - is sound. Whether the rest of his work is or is not sound is up to the scientific community to refine and debate.

[Grocery Store Music]

Stupidity is, unfortunately, legal.

[Agymnum]

Stupidity is, unfortunately, legal.

Hey, as Secretary of State John Kerry most famously said,

"You have a right to be stupid if you want to be."

[Rheinlander]

Something being Censored and pushed to the bottom doesn't mean being disproven.

Racial Science is always censored, the fact is, if something isn't considered politically correct, it won't see the light of day, and if it does, it's only to attack the group or people saying it.

For instance, we can pick and choose which "old guys" we listen to, like Darwin:

"In establishing a sole human species, Darwin contrasted the "civilized races" with the "savage races"; like most of his contemporaries — except the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace — he did not distinguish "biological race" from "cultural race". Moreover, beyond the biology, he noted that savage races risked extinction more from white European colonialism, than from evolutionary inadequacy"

To whom was Darwin refering to, as Savage?

Who were the victims of "white european colonialism" Whoever they are, Darwin likes to think they're savages.

We don't obey Darwin's word as the word of God.

Unlike religion, science takes the words of intelligent men and refines them, makes them better.

Racial science is bullshit because we are all human beings - there is almost no discrepancy genetically between races. Racial science is merely a way of legitimizing bullshit beliefs, much like how people claim that women as somehow intellectually inferior to men because HEY SCIENCE SAYS SO.

Science can be abused by those who know how to manipulate it. You're taking part of Darwin's theories which have since been refined and accentuating it as the most important thing he said. Darwin's basis in biology - evolutionary theory - is sound. Whether the rest of his work is or is not sound is up to the scientific community to refine and debate.

Scientifically women are not intellectually inferior, they simply attribute emotion more to their explicit and implicit memory than men.

Tell me, do you believe in the big bang?

[Agymnum]

Scientifically women are not intellectually inferior, they simply attribute emotion more to their explicit and implicit memory than men.

Tell me, do you believe in the big bang?

I believe the Big Bang is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe so far, yes.

If something else pops up with sufficient evidence, please notify me.

[Farnhamia]

Scientifically women are not intellectually inferior, they simply attribute emotion more to their explicit and implicit memory than men.

Tell me, do you believe in the big bang?

I believe the Big Bang is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe so far, yes.

If something else pops up with sufficient evidence, please notify me.

Let me see ... He'll probably play the "Then you believe in it the same as I believe in God" card.

[Rheinlander]

Scientifically women are not intellectually inferior, they simply attribute emotion more to their explicit and implicit memory than men.

Tell me, do you believe in the big bang?

I believe the Big Bang is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe so far, yes.

If something else pops up with sufficient evidence, please notify me.

But how did it all come to be into existence in the first place?

[Agymnum]

I believe the Big Bang is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe so far, yes.

If something else pops up with sufficient evidence, please notify me.

But how did it all come to be into existence in the first place?

We don't know. That's the best answer I can give. If we knew, I'd give you an answer.

This lack of a clear answer, by the way, is not an excuse to turn to religion or the supernatural. The "God of the Gaps" fallacy is one I'd rather not have to explain to you right now.

[Desperate Measures]

I believe the Big Bang is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe so far, yes.

If something else pops up with sufficient evidence, please notify me.

But how did it all come to be into existence in the first place?

Space turtle eggs.

[Farnhamia]

I believe the Big Bang is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe so far, yes.

If something else pops up with sufficient evidence, please notify me.

But how did it all come to be into existence in the first place?

We're not sure but we have ideas, theories that fit the evidence we have in various ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony). None of them seem to involve supernatural intelligences commanding everything into existence.

[Rheinlander]

But how did it all come to be into existence in the first place?

We don't know. That's the best answer I can give. If we knew, I'd give you an answer.

This lack of a clear answer, by the way, is not an excuse to turn to religion or the supernatural. The "God of the Gaps" fallacy is one I'd rather not have to explain to you right now.

So if you don't know, then it is plausible that there is a God, at the same time that there isn't?

[Farnhamia]

We don't know. That's the best answer I can give. If we knew, I'd give you an answer.

This lack of a clear answer, by the way, is not an excuse to turn to religion or the supernatural. The "God of the Gaps" fallacy is one I'd rather not have to explain to you right now.

So if you don't know, then it is plausible that there is a God, at the same time that there isn't?

There's no evidence, so no, it isn't. "We don't know" does not mean "Must be God."

[Agymnum]

We don't know. That's the best answer I can give. If we knew, I'd give you an answer.

This lack of a clear answer, by the way, is not an excuse to turn to religion or the supernatural. The "God of the Gaps" fallacy is one I'd rather not have to explain to you right now.

So if you don't know, then it is plausible that there is a God, at the same time that there isn't?

A supernatural deity can neither be proven to exist nor not proven to exist in the context of this problem.

Simply put, we cannot know what existed prior to the Big Bang, because time and space as we know it do not exist before the Big Bang. It would be like trying to piece together what events occurred in front of a video camera before someone clicked 'record'. We can guess, but we'll never have solid proof.

If you wish to believe a God exists, that's fine, but there is no proof of his existence in the context of the Big Bang. And by the null hypothesis, that means by default God does not exist in the context of the Big Bang.

[Rheinlander]

So if you don't know, then it is plausible that there is a God, at the same time that there isn't?

There's no evidence, so no, it isn't. "We don't know" does not mean "Must be God."

No one said "must be god"

All I'm saying is, if you have absolutely no idea how everything came to being, there is no way you can conclude it was or Wasn't something.

[Agymnum]

There's no evidence, so no, it isn't. "We don't know" does not mean "Must be God."

No one said "must be god"

All I'm saying is, if you have absolutely no idea how everything came to being, there is no way you can conclude it was or Wasn't something.

This has to do with white supremacy how?

[Farnhamia]

There's no evidence, so no, it isn't. "We don't know" does not mean "Must be God."

No one said "must be god"

All I'm saying is, if you have absolutely no idea how everything came to being, there is no way you can conclude it was or Wasn't something.

We do have ideas. I linked you to an article in Wiki on cosmogony a few posts above. From the evidence we have, and it is considerable, no deities were involved.

[The Hanza]

There's no evidence, so no, it isn't. "We don't know" does not mean "Must be God."

No one said "must be god"

All I'm saying is, if you have absolutely no idea how everything came to being, there is no way you can conclude it was or Wasn't something.

Problem with that is that we have proof that leads to the big bang.

We have no proof that god created the universe.

[Farnhamia]

No one said "must be god"

All I'm saying is, if you have absolutely no idea how everything came to being, there is no way you can conclude it was or Wasn't something.

This has to do with white supremacy how?

Your refutation of his racial science could be wrong, I suppose.

[Rheinlander]

So if you don't know, then it is plausible that there is a God, at the same time that there isn't?

A supernatural deity can neither be proven to exist nor not proven to exist in the context of this problem.

Simply put, we cannot know what existed prior to the Big Bang, because time and space as we know it do not exist before the Big Bang. It would be like trying to piece together what events occurred in front of a video camera before someone clicked 'record'. We can guess, but we'll never have solid proof.

If you wish to believe a God exists, that's fine, but there is no proof of his existence in the context of the Big Bang. And by the null hypothesis, that means by default God does not exist in the context of the Big Bang.

Let me ask you this, if God was real, and is how the bible says he is, a great being that declares the end from the beginning, and that all men fall short of the glory of God, if that were true, then wouldn't that mean that the knowledge of man is limited, therefore a limited being cannot comprehend an unlimited being?

[Agymnum]

This has to do with white supremacy how?

Your refutation of his racial science could be wrong, I suppose.

On what grounds?

[Farnhamia]

Your refutation of his racial science could be wrong, I suppose.

On what grounds?

I don't know, ask him.