War on white people?

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

Would you rather be separate from a different race or be terrorized by some cunt screaming black power in your fucking face?

You don't know what you're talking about, stop invoking South Africa

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

[Blakk Metal]

What would you prefer: separate bathrooms or terrorism followed genocide? Not all the whites were enforcing apartheid.

Whenever I highlight the fact that we are going to be minorities you always bring up the fact that we made redskins a minority, so you are holding me responsible for that?

Neither but at the same time you can't escape historical tensions in Apartheid South Africa that easily. The "genocide" and eventual expulsion of Afrikaners happened because of the Apartheid government which was worse than separate restrooms. You should read about it more.

The Europeans were benign, ANC was malign.

I wasn't the one who made such a claim, but if you become a minority so? I mean, is it going to harm your standards of living so much you're going to kill yourself? The most that's going to happen is you will lose power in politics and will have to work with other races to achieve your goals. That's not such a bad thing.

It will turn Europe and the US into Santa Ana at best, and Rio at worst.

How is mass murder and rape worse than a caste system?

Would you rather be separate from a different race or be terrorized by some cunt screaming black power in your fucking face?

Neither, I would be the one doing the terrorizing.

Is joke

Would you rather be separate from a different race or be terrorized by some cunt screaming black power in your fucking face?

You don't know what you're talking about, stop invoking South Africa

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Harbertia]

White, but I consider my self Nordic, and that's how I identity. Saying White really isn't as specific as Nordic.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, I had heard about that, but good gravy, nothing that specific.

[Pandeeria]

I wasn't the one posting those sources you dumb bitch.

If your responses in this thread are an example of the positive influence of white civilization, I can see why folks aren't up in arms to defend it.

His responses are quite lovely.

[Distruzio]

I do not identify with a particular race. It's too damned convoluted and socially arbitrary. My culture demands I identify with ethnicity. It's more accurate and reflective of who and what I am - Creole.

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

It's our country and they are our guests, time they started showing some fucking respect, every remebrance day we see something like this: https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&s ... k&tbm=isch

You're starting to sound like a radical from America.

So you think it's ok for them to burn poppies and the union jack? millions of people died for those and for their and your right to stand here bad mouthing our country!

[District XIV]

Being made a minority will take away our national identity and we are also expected to be a majority Muslim nation in 10 years, they will have enough people to make a political party which could succeed in a general election,

Source that.

Edit: I mean, come on, the UK "be[ing] a majority Muslim nation in 10 years"?

which could mean sharia law, I would rather not live under a backward thinking doctrine such as sharia law

The idea that Sharia Law would be implemented in the UK is extremely far-out-there.

If I wanted to be a minority then I would move to a foreign country, It's my country not theirs, they are our guests and should stop trying to change our culture, if you change the people, you change the culture.

Yeeaah no.

This again could mean Sharia Law which has already been implanted into our law: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html

Find something better than DailyMail, please.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Neither but at the same time you can't escape historical tensions in Apartheid South Africa that easily. The "genocide" and eventual expulsion of Afrikaners happened because of the Apartheid government which was worse than separate restrooms. You should read about it more.

The Europeans were benign, ANC was malign.

I wasn't the one who made such a claim, but if you become a minority so? I mean, is it going to harm your standards of living so much you're going to kill yourself? The most that's going to happen is you will lose power in politics and will have to work with other races to achieve your goals. That's not such a bad thing.

It will turn Europe and the US into Santa Ana at best, and Rio at worst.

Would you rather be separate from a different race or be terrorized by some cunt screaming black power in your fucking face?

Neither, I would be the one doing the terrorizing.

Is joke

You don't know what you're talking about, stop invoking South Africa

You don't know what you are talking about.

I think I can trust Stanford University's departments more about Apartheid South Africa; you're talking about Genocide.

If there wouldn't have been an Apartheid state that oppressed the African community in SA there wouldn't have been civil war and genocide now wouldn't there?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're starting to sound like a radical from America.

So you think it's ok for them to burn poppies and the union jack? millions of people died for those and for their and your right to stand here bad mouthing our country!

They didn't die for the flag. They died to defend their borders and the national interests of the British Empire. The flag is a symbol. It's childish to burn it, but it is (so far as I know) legal, and causes no direct harm to anyone unless the person burning it accidentally goes up in flames as well.

[Scholmeria]

Also, racialism is bullshit. Kant and others during the Enlightenment came up with it, it has been disproven since then by many academic circles. They were not biologists either mind you, Kant and the others who came up with racialism were philosophy professors, not biologists. Now that we have advanced both in medical and life sciences we know this to be bullshit; but nice try at reviving a 300+ year old sack of shit from the grave.

No, that is just not true.

Kant and to other philosopher of the Elightement race was never a subject. Ironically one of the few racist philosophers was Karl Marx, and even he was racist toward Slavs.

[Distruzio]

You're starting to sound like a radical from America.

So you think it's ok for them to burn poppies and the union jack? millions of people died for those and for their and your right to stand here bad mouthing our country!

Not his country. But the point remains... um... confusing. Why take offense at someone exercising the right "millions of people died for"?

[Mavorpen]

The Europeans were benign, ANC was malign.

It will turn Europe and the US into Santa Ana at best, and Rio at worst.

Neither, I would be the one doing the terrorizing.

Is joke

You don't know what you are talking about.

I think I can trust Stanford University's departments more about Apartheid South Africa; you're talking about Genocide.

If there wouldn't have been an Apartheid state that oppressed the African community in SA there wouldn't have been civil war and genocide now wouldn't there?

We're looking at this the wrong way. He posted a source from genocidewatch. I think he's telling us that he's a Poe..

[The Republic of Merrimont]

Wondering how long the moderators will come

[The Land of Truth]

Neither but at the same time you can't escape historical tensions in Apartheid South Africa that easily. The "genocide" and eventual expulsion of Afrikaners happened because of the Apartheid government which was worse than separate restrooms. You should read about it more.

I wasn't the one who made such a claim, but if you become a minority so? I mean, is it going to harm your standards of living so much you're going to kill yourself? The most that's going to happen is you will lose power in politics and will have to work with other races to achieve your goals. That's not such a bad thing.

Being made a minority will take away our national identity and we are also expected to be a majority Muslim nation in 10 years, they will have enough people to make a political party which could succeed in a general election, which could mean sharia law, I would rather not live under a backward thinking doctrine such as sharia law

If I wanted to be a minority then I would move to a foreign country, It's my country not theirs, they are our guests and should stop trying to change our culture, if you change the people, you change the culture. This again could mean Sharia Law which has already been implanted into our law: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html

How will being a minority "take away your national identity"? You do understand what a "nation" is, right? Right, because everyone knows that the first thing Muslims do when they win an election is institute Sharia law. I mean, it's not like a country can be both Muslim and secular, right? Also, "backward thinking"? Given some of the things you've said, I'd say it's a step up.

No, it's not "your" country. Countries are not tangible things that can be owned. (They're literally just lines on a map that people agree to adhere to--nominally.) They aren't trying to change your culture, they trying to keep theirs. (These two things are entirely different.) Of course, because the Daily Mail is the most trustworthy news source in Britain. *nods* (I mean, it's not like they have an agenda of any kind...)

[Distruzio]

Also, racialism is bullshit. Kant and others during the Enlightenment came up with it, it has been disproven since then by many academic circles. They were not biologists either mind you, Kant and the others who came up with racialism were philosophy professors, not biologists. Now that we have advanced both in medical and life sciences we know this to be bullshit; but nice try at reviving a 300+ year old sack of shit from the grave.

No, that is just not true.

Kant and to other philosopher of the Elightement race was never a subject. Ironically one of the few racist philosophers was Karl Marx, and even he was racist toward Slavs.

Racialism, Schlomeria. Not racism.

Wiki sez:

Racialist and racialism depict an outlook or emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. As such, these are neutral terms which in context can be either used negatively, as with classical racism, or used constructively, as with attempting to understand racialistic societal complexities. ‘Affirmative action’ is an example of a racialistic policy which attempts to reverse racial discrimination whether intended or not. The term racialism is far less popular.

[Mavorpen]

Also, racialism is bullshit. Kant and others during the Enlightenment came up with it, it has been disproven since then by many academic circles. They were not biologists either mind you, Kant and the others who came up with racialism were philosophy professors, not biologists. Now that we have advanced both in medical and life sciences we know this to be bullshit; but nice try at reviving a 300+ year old sack of shit from the grave.

No, that is just not true.

Kant and to other philosopher of the Elightement race was never a subject. Ironically one of the few racist philosophers was Karl Marx, and even he was racist toward Slavs.

Oh hey, it's the guy that knows nothing about Kant.

And again you used it from an essay of a student which is basically his free interpretation of how abortion can be justified using cathegorical imperative by Kant. It is not a source at all nor is opinion of a student relevant.

I'm sorry, but the opinion of a student that's actually STUDYING this subject and has actually used SOURCES in his essay is infinitely more reputable than you.

Even in his introduction he says how the cathegorical imperative is used in a correct form approved by most scholars. He wrote

Again. No. NOTHING in that paragraph states ANYTHING close it being "approved by most scholars." What is it with you and reading things that aren't there?

Your arguments in your posts are basicall the same arguments from this essay which is again a free interpretation. The problem is also that the cathegorical imperative is a logical tool and you cannot use it for two contrary statement, so it would only justify one of the two (in case of abortion that it is wrong).

So, yes according to Kant abortion is immoral. It is also a very secular argument against abortion.

Holy shit, it's like talking to a wall.

Listen, I'll make this very simple for you. I asked you to directly address my argument. Nothing more. You've so far REFUSED to do so. You've so far continuously moaned, "IT'S A STUDENT ESSAY!" without EVER actually refuting the essay or MY argument. You've given me NO sources or evidence that your claim is correct. You've amounted your ENTIRE argument to, "NYEHH, UR RONG!"

If that's the best you can do, you've already fucking lost.

Here, address my argument directly. Explain to me, with sources, that everything said here is wrong. Only THEN can I begin to take you seriously at all.

I want to further expand just how bad it is to simplify Kant's moral systems and reduce it to simply categorical imperatives in an attempt to try to fit abortion into it.

Kant believed in the "sanctity of life." It is thus reasonable from a Kantian perspective to formulate a categorical imperative of "always preserve life at all costs." On the surface, this would make abortion wrong. The problem, of course, is that this really isn't all that universal at all. For example, in the case of a mother's life being at risk because of her pregnancy. Kant used something referred to as the "principle of double effect." Per Kant's ideas, "It is morally indefensible to intend to harm an innocent person, but it is morally defensible to perform actions with good intended consequences, where harm is a foreseen but unintended consequence." If the fetus were to be aborted, the intention is to preserve the life of the mother. The consequence of course, harms the fetus. But that isn't the intrinsic intention of the act. There were good intentions, which makes this morally defensible. Thus, using the "sanctity of life" the context of abortion is inherently flawed.

Of course, we're left with a case where the mother's life is not in danger, and simply wants an abortion for some other reason. Does it still hold up, given categorical imperatives? Turns out, yes. Kant's ideas about the "sanctity of life" applies to persons. This is because his beliefs are ground in the belief that humans are the pinnacle of intelligence and rationality in the animal kingdom. The capacity for rationality is what makes human beings members of the human community. A fetus is not rational, nor self-conscious. In Kant's eyes, a fetus would fall under his view of animals and his idea of "means to an end," where humans are to be treated as end in themselves, rather than means to an end:




Under Kant's views, a fetus may therefore be treated as a means to an end.

So, sorry, but I don't buy the idea that Kant's "categorical imperatives" on their own are anywhere near enough to formulate universal moral beliefs. Also, ignoring Kant's OTHER ideas and philosophies to pedal such an idea is wholly intellectually dishonest.

Oh, and since you wanted to complain so much about my source being an "student essay," here, have an article published in a peer reviewed journal for philosophy. Now tell me, what exactly do YOU have to support your argument outside of empty words?

How ya been?

[Pandeeria]

You're starting to sound like a radical from America.

So you think it's ok for them to burn poppies and the union jack? millions of people died for those and for their and your right to stand here bad mouthing our country!

They died so people had the right to bad mouth our country.

[The Land of Truth]

Also, racialism is bullshit. Kant and others during the Enlightenment came up with it, it has been disproven since then by many academic circles. They were not biologists either mind you, Kant and the others who came up with racialism were philosophy professors, not biologists. Now that we have advanced both in medical and life sciences we know this to be bullshit; but nice try at reviving a 300+ year old sack of shit from the grave.

No, that is just not true.

Kant and to other philosopher of the Elightement race was never a subject. Ironically one of the few racist philosophers was Karl Marx, and even he was racist toward Slavs.

Given that Marxism (and, thus, Marx himself) sees races as nothing more than bourgeoisie tool of proletariat oppression...no.

[The United Kingdoms of Austinarya]

1) So it's genocide if it's against redskins but if it is against whites then it's ok?

2) It has nothing to do with me, I didn't start the British empire so why should I feel guilty for it, besides we were more civilized and less primitive

3) How do you not make the connection that calling a white person a honkey is also fucking racist you knob cheese?

1) No, it's genocide because they were forced off the land, forced to walk thousands of miles away from said land, placed in reservations to suffer and die, and then (as if that wasn't enough) systematically slaughtered as white settlements encroached further and further west. Name one time that's happened to white people.

2) No one's asking you to feel guilty for it, but the fact remains that no, the British Empire was not "more civilized" (unless you think slaughtering millions of innocent people is civilized...)

3) What does that have to do with anything? Okay, it's racist. And? Call me when black people take control of the government and begin systematically preventing you from attaining your goals.

Just go kill yourself you thundercunt, I didn't go and personally invade those countries so why the fuck should I have them colonize our country because of something my ancestors did?

I'd rather not, but thanks. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The immigration to Britain isn't retribution for colonization (they're not doing it for "payback"), they're moving there because it offers socioeconomic and political opportunities that their places of origin don't. (Knock off the fucking victim complex.)

Why should I give Britain back to the Celts?

I just figured that, since your so against people taking other people's land, you'd feel bad for them. (But, I guess I made the mistake of assuming you had empathy.)

I didn't go and invade Britain my ancestors did you little shit.

Oh, gee, really? Sorry, I was under the impression that the Anglo-Saxons invaded in 2010. /sarcasm

So because Britain is apparently a nation of immigrants that means we have to let every Tom, Dick and Harry in does it?

If they want to live there, you have no right to tell them otherwise, no.

Britain is descended from European immigrants so what your saying is that we should let in European immigrants only?

I don't recall ever saying that.

So basically white people only?

Sure, if you consider Mediterraneans white...

That is even more racist than just stopping immigration completely.

I agree. Your straw-man is very racist.

The EU is not stopping Europe from becoming like the US, it wants to make Europe a federal country,

No, it doesn't. The EU's goal is a more integrated Europe (only right-wing fucknuts think it wants to make Europe a country--case in point). And, even if it did, so what?

no one wants a federal Europe so we should leave,

They do.

I couldn't give a fuck about what color an illegal aliens skin is, they broke the law they should get the fuck out of MY country.

Right, because every single immigrant there is there illegally.

I like how you think it was bad of my ANCESTORS to make redskins a minority but you think it is ok for immigrants to make ME a minority.

It's bad because Native Americans ("Redskins", as you persist on saying) were systematically murdered for their land. Genetic diversity isn't the same thing as murder.

Fuck you and your far left bollocks,

Far-left? I'm a fucking social-democrat...

We did bring civilization to America as they were primitive and less advanced.

Subjective. Also, bullshit.

I support a multicultural world not a multicultural society,

Right, so it's okay for brown people to exist, just not where you live. (Yep, that's racism.)

I am fed up of hypocrisy,

Me too. So, when ya gonna stop (being hypocritical, that is)?

it is "apartheid" to put British people first but positive discrimination is ok?

No, apartheid is a system by which the minority rules by stripping the rights of the majority. (It's basically the opposite of ochlocracy.) Last I checked, the vast majority of Britain's government was still white.

and it's ok for immigrants to want to enforce their culture on us but when it happened in the British empire, that was barbaric?

No one's "enforcing their culture" on anyone. They have as much a right to their culture as you have to yours. The only thing anybody asks is that you accept the fact that their culture exists (which, obviously, you're unable to do, since it acknowledges the fact that they're actually humans).

Grow up you fucking pussy

I'd point out the irony in this, but I feel like it'd be lost on you.

They can practice their own culture in their own country, it is our country they should respect it and not degrade it with primitive cultures. A federal EU would be bad as the MAJORITY don't want it therefore it is undemocratic

[Blakk Metal]

The Europeans were benign, ANC was malign.

It will turn Europe and the US into Santa Ana at best, and Rio at worst.

Neither, I would be the one doing the terrorizing.

Is joke

You don't know what you are talking about.

I think I can trust Stanford University's departments more about Apartheid South Africa; you're talking about Genocide.

If there wouldn't have been an Apartheid state that oppressed the African community in SA there wouldn't have been civil war and genocide now wouldn't there?

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

I think I can trust Stanford University's departments more about Apartheid South Africa; you're talking about Genocide.

If there wouldn't have been an Apartheid state that oppressed the African community in SA there wouldn't have been civil war and genocide now wouldn't there?

We're looking at this the wrong way. He posted a source from genocidewatch. I think he's telling us that he's a Poe..

Do you have something to say?

[The Land of Truth]

So you think it's ok for them to burn poppies and the union jack? millions of people died for those and for their and your right to stand here bad mouthing our country!

They died so people had the right to bad mouth our country.

Okay, now he's definitely sounding like a radical American.

[Pandeeria]

1) No, it's genocide because they were forced off the land, forced to walk thousands of miles away from said land, placed in reservations to suffer and die, and then (as if that wasn't enough) systematically slaughtered as white settlements encroached further and further west. Name one time that's happened to white people.

2) No one's asking you to feel guilty for it, but the fact remains that no, the British Empire was not "more civilized" (unless you think slaughtering millions of innocent people is civilized...)

3) What does that have to do with anything? Okay, it's racist. And? Call me when black people take control of the government and begin systematically preventing you from attaining your goals.



I'd rather not, but thanks. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The immigration to Britain isn't retribution for colonization (they're not doing it for "payback"), they're moving there because it offers socioeconomic and political opportunities that their places of origin don't. (Knock off the fucking victim complex.)



I just figured that, since your so against people taking other people's land, you'd feel bad for them. (But, I guess I made the mistake of assuming you had empathy.)



Oh, gee, really? Sorry, I was under the impression that the Anglo-Saxons invaded in 2010. /sarcasm



If they want to live there, you have no right to tell them otherwise, no.



I don't recall ever saying that.



Sure, if you consider Mediterraneans white...



I agree. Your straw-man is very racist.



No, it doesn't. The EU's goal is a more integrated Europe (only right-wing fucknuts think it wants to make Europe a country--case in point). And, even if it did, so what?



They do.



Right, because every single immigrant there is there illegally.



It's bad because Native Americans ("Redskins", as you persist on saying) were systematically murdered for their land. Genetic diversity isn't the same thing as murder.



Far-left? I'm a fucking social-democrat...



Subjective. Also, bullshit.



Right, so it's okay for brown people to exist, just not where you live. (Yep, that's racism.)



Me too. So, when ya gonna stop (being hypocritical, that is)?



No, apartheid is a system by which the minority rules by stripping the rights of the majority. (It's basically the opposite of ochlocracy.) Last I checked, the vast majority of Britain's government was still white.



No one's "enforcing their culture" on anyone. They have as much a right to their culture as you have to yours. The only thing anybody asks is that you accept the fact that their culture exists (which, obviously, you're unable to do, since it acknowledges the fact that they're actually humans).



I'd point out the irony in this, but I feel like it'd be lost on you.

They can practice their own culture in their own country, it is our country they should respect it and not degrade it with primitive cultures. A federal EU would be bad as the MAJORITY don't want it therefore it is undemocratic

Awww, that's sweet. You want to persevere a convoluted, arbitrary mess of a concept that is your culture?

Culture fucking sucks.

[Agranthon]

I think I can trust Stanford University's departments more about Apartheid South Africa; you're talking about Genocide.

If there wouldn't have been an Apartheid state that oppressed the African community in SA there wouldn't have been civil war and genocide now wouldn't there?

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

We're looking at this the wrong way. He posted a source from genocidewatch. I think he's telling us that he's a Poe..

Do you have something to say?

I would defer on the huts and witch doctors point.

[Mavorpen]

I think I can trust Stanford University's departments more about Apartheid South Africa; you're talking about Genocide.

If there wouldn't have been an Apartheid state that oppressed the African community in SA there wouldn't have been civil war and genocide now wouldn't there?

If it weren't for the Dutch, they would be living in huts and relying solely on witch doctors.

We're looking at this the wrong way. He posted a source from genocidewatch. I think he's telling us that he's a Poe..

Do you have something to say?

Oh so you CAN see my posts.

That did happen once. They bitched about it, despite it being beneficial.

Oh, you're back. Guess you gave up looking for your nonexistent sources that blacks use marijuana proportional to the conviction rate and finding the nonexistent genes making them more likely to commit crimes.

[Blakk Metal]

They can practice their own culture in their own country, it is our country they should respect it and not degrade it with primitive cultures. A federal EU would be bad as the MAJORITY don't want it therefore it is undemocratic

WaW, that's sweet. You want to persevere a convoluted, arbitrary mess of a concept that of your culture?

Culture fucking sucks.

Did you just say that British culture sucks? British culture gave you the electricity you use to insult it.