Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:


Tsk, tsk, shifting the goal posts again, Soren?  Really?  I've reminded of how you Islamophobes like to do that when you're on a losing wicket (to mix sporting metaphors). 

Christians have been killing Christians and non-Christians since the time of Christ.   Go and look at a (good) history book.   The wars have been immeasurable in the amount of death, destruction and so on.  Tsk, tsk.   

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:


Strange. Every time I catch a train on the subcontinent, Indians scramble to give a seat to moi.

White man's burden, innit.

Aussie wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:01pm:

Well, YOU wouldn't frikken know!!!! 

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:


Oh, they catch my eye alright. If only I could get some peace.

Australia? Sydney or Melbourne? Kangaroo, no? You like cricket? Shane Warne?

Yes, Sydney, no, no, I don't know.

Isn't it.

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 9:53pm:


We're all friends here, dear boy. Liberty, equality, fraternity. We are one.

Isn't it.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:
so whats it all about then? your obsession with tinted skin? No one else seems to care about skin colour except you.

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 10:06pm:


But of course. Friends, not friends, love thy neighbour, love thine enemy as thyself.

We do not submit to creeds, old chap. We submit to oneness.

We may struggle with this in life, but we are all one in death, no?

You are indeed my friend.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:


You are talking complete nonsense. Sand negro is not a 'race' - its a made up word. It can be, and has been, referred to any 'muslim looking' person from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Berbers of North Africa. All completely different "races" in your book.

Presumably you can't therefore claim the statement '100% of muslims are sand negroes' is racist. Correct? We simply need to apply your own logic - and conclude that "reference to 100% of Muslims obviously excludes the possibility he was referring to racial subgroup of Muslims"

And yet previously you asserted exactly that - that 'all muslims are sand negroes' is racist. Can you explain this gaping contradiction in your own argument?

Quote:


So just to clarify here FD - if a normal law-abiding, peace-loving muslim, who integrates into western society and has never killed anyone is referred to as a low intellect due to inbreeding who goes around killing people - thats somehow not as bad as calling the same person a "sand negro"? Just because being born a "sand negro" (which remember, is a made up word) is not a choice - even though being born with low intellect due to inbreeding is also not a choice?

Is it sinking in yet that my beef with moses' statement does not have anything to do with the choice of being a muslim, but rather his broad-stroking regarding what is inherent in being born muslim? And that just like 'sand negro' is a derogatory claim about what a person is 'born as'- so to is inbred-related low intellect?

Quote:


Think about how stupid this question is FD. I assert its racism, you disagree, so I follow up with "ok, then what would you describe it as (besides "not racist")" - and that can somehow be twisted into "hmmm - gandalf must be lying about something just to get me to comment on this" Only you could turn such blatant evasion on your part as somehow me lying, or your previous gem - 'negotiating down' or 'backpeddling' on moses' racism.



Quote:


Ah that would be your hilarious BS that "non whites" is "pretty much the same" as "anyone who migrated post 1850" - right? Comedy gold. How many lilly white eastern Europeans, French, Germans - not to mention Irish and Scots have took up residence in England since 1850?


Quote:


Sure, if there is no need for 'racial superiority' as a motive, there is no need to use "non-whites" and "kick out" in the same sentence. It would also be infinitely more logical, as it wouldn't (racistly) ascribe the "problem" of residents without proper claim to heritage exclusively at the feet of non-whites - even though there would be at least as many whites that fit into the same category.

Quote:


Oh FD, subtlety is the last attribute I would ascribe to a racist.

Such 'non-subtleties' as thinking that "non-white" and "everyone who entered England after 1850" is  "pretty much the same". Thats exactly what a racist would say - because its an outrageous broad-stroke of a very large and diverse group. Just sayin....

OF course racists don't care about the subtle differences - no doubt racists would say both, even though in both cases they are thinking only of "non-whites" or "non-[whatever race they identify as]" - and making both specifically as a statement of racial superiority. But thats not to say the statement "anyone who entered after 1850 should be kicked out" can't be said by a non-racist. It can. Its probably less likely, but it its possible . Unlike the exclusively racist statement "all non-whites should be kicked out".

Quote:


That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist. And I hope you can understand the difference between this sort of statement and the hopeless broad-stroke statement "all non-whites".