Planet Rugby Forum

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote: No, you're playing silly games conflating two entirely different things.

You've got me and bimboman confused

I haven't. You've argued this before, and so have a few others. I've read a few books arguing the non-existence of 'race' or whatever you want to call it, and indeed, even the UN have declared that it doesn't exist. It is the very definition of stupidity, and most anthropoligical schools should be immediately closed down.

Something something slabs of sweeping generalisations slamming down on my head or some bullshit.

And yeah, "Africa is a continent not a unified area which can be used to predict biological traits" is my point, raised in response to bimbo's attempt to paint my position as ridiculous because of Sickle Cell Disease. You are making my point for me

You knew what I meant by African when I used it, to fall back on pedantry of not using "sub Saharan" in my analogy is amazing consider you've unilaterally decided the term "race" is up to the user to define.

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Which suggests that appealing to science when trying to understand human behaviour is a fool's errand.

So.

Let's ask again - why is "Muslim" not a race?

Because however everybody and everything else in the world chooses to define race bar you and that mental American women who decided she was "black" race has little or not element of choice attached to it, whether it is used as a biological reference word or geographical and cultural.

Muslim is a choice of belief and cannot be construed as anything else except by wilful stupidity.

Rachel Dolezal was doing a fantastic job of demonstrating that there are a number of elements of race which are a choice until her parents weighed in, at which point the large number of people like you who think race is not a choice decided she was lying.

Seneca: Richard Spencer for one

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote: No, you're playing silly games conflating two entirely different things.

You've got me and bimboman confused

I haven't. You've argued this before, and so have a few others. I've read a few books arguing the non-existence of 'race' or whatever you want to call it, and indeed, even the UN have declared that it doesn't exist. It is the very definition of stupidity, and most anthropoligical schools should be immediately closed down.

Something something slabs of sweeping generalisations slamming down on my head or some bullshit.

And yeah, "Africa is a continent not a unified area which can be used to predict biological traits" is my point, raised in response to bimbo's attempt to paint my position as ridiculous because of Sickle Cell Disease. You are making my point for me

You knew what I meant by African when I used it, to fall back on pedantry of not using "sub Saharan" in my analogy is amazing consider you've unilaterally decided the term "race" is up to the user to define.

No, bimbo, I honestly didn't know what you meant. And I'm genuinely curious to know whether you actually knew what you meant well enough to describe it. "Sub-Saharan" isn't a particularly meaningful scientific distinction either.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Farva wrote:Is it kind of arguing semantics here.
Whether the bloke was being a racist or a bigot (he told Datsiyari to go back to Uran so he was definitely being racist there) is kind of beyond the point. He was being a wanker and should be called on it. Thankfully he has been.

Saying Muslims arent a race so he wasnt racist is a plain and sime deflecrion of what is going on.

This

Sorry , you are claiming Muslim is a race and totally disagree with Farva, but as you were.

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Farva wrote:Is it kind of arguing semantics here.
Whether the bloke was being a racist or a bigot (he told Datsiyari to go back to Uran so he was definitely being racist there) is kind of beyond the point. He was being a wanker and should be called on it. Thankfully he has been.

Saying Muslims arent a race so he wasnt racist is a plain and sime deflecrion of what is going on.

This

Sorry , you are claiming Muslim is a race and totally disagree with Farva, but as you were.

I'm agreeing with him entirely. The question of whether the man was being treated in a bigoted and unacceptable fashion of the kind which we generally describe as "racism" does not hinge on whether being Muslim or a member of a "race" is a choice

Until people start using "religionist" to mean prejudiced against adherents of a religious faith, the reality is that "racist" is really the only word we have to describe the concept

No, bimbo, I honestly didn't know what you meant. And I'm genuinely curious to know whether you actually knew what you meant well enough to describe it. "Sub-Saharan" isn't a particularly meaningful scientific distinction either.

It can affect people from Arabia as well. But it's prevelance is a large block of Africa. Any ways you've reduced any argument about Muslim being a race (for which you've actually made no argument for really other than to redefine any common use of the word race) to a generisation about sickle cell illness.

You're not genuinly curious at all.

No, bimbo, I honestly didn't know what you meant. And I'm genuinely curious to know whether you actually knew what you meant well enough to describe it. "Sub-Saharan" isn't a particularly meaningful scientific distinction either.

It can affect people from Arabia as well. But it's prevelance is a large block of Africa. Any ways you've reduced any argument about Muslim being a race (for which you've actually made no argument for really other than to redefine any common use of the word race) to a generisation about sickle cell illness.

You're not genuinly curious at all.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Farva wrote:Is it kind of arguing semantics here.
Whether the bloke was being a racist or a bigot (he told Datsiyari to go back to Uran so he was definitely being racist there) is kind of beyond the point. He was being a wanker and should be called on it. Thankfully he has been.

Saying Muslims arent a race so he wasnt racist is a plain and sime deflecrion of what is going on.

This

Sorry , you are claiming Muslim is a race and totally disagree with Farva, but as you were.

I'm agreeing with him entirely. The question of whether the man was being treated in a bigoted and unacceptable fashion of the kind which we generally describe as "racism" does not hinge on whether being Muslim or a member of a "race" is a choice

No you asked why Muslim isn't a race, if your point was racism is an acceptable word for general bigotry that would have been the point you made.

You didn't you asked and argued about whether Muslim was a race.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Which suggests that appealing to science when trying to understand human behaviour is a fool's errand.

So.

Let's ask again - why is "Muslim" not a race?

Because however everybody and everything else in the world chooses to define race bar you and that mental American women who decided she was "black" race has little or not element of choice attached to it, whether it is used as a biological reference word or geographical and cultural.

Muslim is a choice of belief and cannot be construed as anything else except by wilful stupidity.

Rachel Dolezal was doing a fantastic job of demonstrating that there are a number of elements of race which are a choice until her parents weighed in, at which point the large number of people like you who think race is not a choice decided she was lying.

Seneca: Richard Spencer for one

Don't state what I do or don't believe . You don't know what I believe. Anything I've said here has been about common acceptability of word use and choices of description. If you think someone's colour and appearance is a choice that person has made then I've a spiritual church for you to attend.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Until people start using "religionist" to mean prejudiced against adherents of a religious faith, the reality is that "racist" is really the only word we have to describe the concept

Islamophobe seems to work pretty well for those who wish to rant about that stuff.

Anti-Dentite for those prejudiced against Dentists.

On this basis the writer and producers of the "book of Mormon" should be sent to prison.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Until people start using "religionist" to mean prejudiced against adherents of a religious faith, the reality is that "racist" is really the only word we have to describe the concept

Islamophobe seems to work pretty well for those who wish to rant about that stuff.

Anti-Dentite for those prejudiced against Dentists.

On this basis the writer and producers of the "book of Mormon" should be sent to prison.

The Mormons handled that with remarkable good humour.

Yes, they really took the message that Mormonism ultimately helped make them better people on the chin

I don't give a f uck what the Mormons thought , I'm offended on their behalf and they should be patronised and protected.

So is racism now to be considered to be on a scale of seriouness depending on the group that are being "sinned" against?

Mick Mannock wrote:So is racism now to be considered to be on a scale of seriouness depending on the group that are being "sinned" against?

It appears so, though of course we have come up with a name for these groupings especially as "race" has now been banned from usage.

Do you think we should seprate off "beliefs" from real groups , obviously some don't. It's very complex.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

ukjim wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:So is racism now to be considered to be on a scale of seriouness depending on the group that are being "sinned" against?

context innit.

Being mzungu in east africa you experience loads of "racism" but as you are comparatively rich and powerful it's like water off a ducks back.

Are you mzungu?

Aren't we all a little bit mzungu now and then.

bimboman wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:So is racism now to be considered to be on a scale of seriouness depending on the group that are being "sinned" against?

It appears so, though of course we have come up with a name for these groupings especially as "race" has now been banned from usage.

Do you think we should seprate off "beliefs" from real groups , obviously some don't. It's very complex.

We can only take someones declared beliefs on trust

Sefton wrote:Maybe I need an Albanian drug dealing, philosophical dwarf on a bar stool to give it the authenticity that your posts are famed for.

SamShark could dress up for you?

tbf, quibbling about whether racist is the right word to describe the dickheadery of the guys in the video shouldn't really be the headline.

Those guys were dickheads, and whether it was racist, bigoted, prejudiced, or whatever else, it doesn't really matter. It shouldn't be acceptable behaviour.
Arguing about whether "muslim isn't a race" won't make their behaviour any more acceptable even if it's decided that you can't use racism to describe Islamophobia, Iranian-hate, or calling non-white people monkey and telling them to go back where they came from.

Call it flurovestwearingcocksuckery for all I care at this stage, they're wankers.

or calling non-white people monkey

Comparing white people to animals is acceptable then ? Is there a scale of loud where these comparisons are acceptable ?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:tbf, quibbling about whether racist is the right word to describe the dickheadery of the guys in the video shouldn't really be the headline.

Those guys were dickheads, and whether it was racist, bigoted, prejudiced, or whatever else, it doesn't really matter. It shouldn't be acceptable behaviour.
Arguing about whether "muslim isn't a race" won't make their behaviour any more acceptable even if it's decided that you can't use racism to describe Islamophobia, Iranian-hate, or calling non-white people monkey and telling them to go back where they came from.

Call it flurovestwearingcocksuckery for all I care at this stage, they're wankers.

I don't see anyone arguing against that. In the finest traditions of PR, we have decided to argue about something else, however.

err... I wasn't saying that anyone WAS saying that, just that this is what was getting lost in the semantic quibbling going on.

You've reached the point where you're seeing an argument in every post - maybe it's time for a wee lie down.

bimboman wrote:

or calling non-white people monkey

Comparing white people to animals is acceptable then ?

No... that was the point.

Sefton wrote:

ScarfaceClaw wrote:

Sefton wrote:Maybe I need an Albanian drug dealing, philosophical dwarf on a bar stool to give it the authenticity that your posts are famed for.

SamShark could dress up for you?

I'll leave it to Houts, he seems to get under Sneaker's skin.

Like Buffalo Bill? It rubs the lotion on its skin etc.

Turbogoat wrote:

bimboman wrote:

or calling non-white people monkey

Comparing white people to animals is acceptable then ?

No... that was the point.

Oh right, that's not of course what you typed but as everything is so fluid I'll accept you meant white as well as non white people.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:tbf, quibbling about whether racist is the right word to describe the dickheadery of the guys in the video shouldn't really be the headline.

Those guys were dickheads, and whether it was racist, bigoted, prejudiced, or whatever else, it doesn't really matter. It shouldn't be acceptable behaviour.
Arguing about whether "muslim isn't a race" won't make their behaviour any more acceptable even if it's decided that you can't use racism to describe Islamophobia, Iranian-hate, or calling non-white people monkey and telling them to go back where they came from.

Call it flurovestwearingcocksuckery for all I care at this stage, they're wankers.

I don't see anyone arguing against that. In the finest traditions of PR, we have decided to argue about something else, however.

err... I wasn't saying that anyone WAS saying that, just that this is what was getting lost in the semantic quibbling going on.

You've reached the point where you're seeing an argument in every post - maybe it's time for a wee lie down.

Um, I wasn't making an argument at all. Projecting much?

Probably

Might have read a bit much into your opening sentence, where you said you don't see anyone arguing against that.

You realize we are now arguing about not arguing about stuff? Gawd help us both.

bimboman wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

bimboman wrote:

or calling non-white people monkey

Comparing white people to animals is acceptable then ?

No... that was the point.

Oh right, that's not of course what you typed but as everything is so fluid I'll accept you meant white as well as non white people.

I can only write stuff for you, I can't comprehend them for you.

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

Calculus wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.

Sefton wrote:I'm not sure what is being suggested but I'm quite confident that Bimbo has never displayed any bigoted or racist attitude on this forum and holds no such views personally.

Whereas you have a history of seeing those attitudes where they do exist.

Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

c69 wrote:Shoe shiningly good posts

Boxing clever

bimboman wrote:

Calculus wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.

So what was your Sickle Cell point about?

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

c69 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

Apart from all domesticated animals

Of course.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Calculus wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.

So what was your Sickle Cell point about?

You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

What ? Biologists have only and do only categorise animals becaus animals have "specific roles"

Crikey what leap of new word understanding are you going to use now!

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Calculus wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.

No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.

So what was your Sickle Cell point about?

You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.

It's hereditary, yes I am aware. Are you saying that white people can't have sickle cell disease?

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?

Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).