Quote:


Muhammed did, for example. There are many ways in which Muslims are superior to Jews - religiously, morally, legally etc. After all, he had to stereotype all 800 of them as scheming Jews to justify slaughtering them. Come to think of it, so did you. Are you racist Gandalf?

Did Moses ever argue that it took 1400 years to get the inbreeding effect that he attributes the stupidity of Muslims to? Or is this another fantasy of yours that you use to stereotype Moses?

Quote:


Are you saying that doctors can be a racial marker but not an ethno-cultural group?

When you converted to Islam, did you change your ethno-cultural group?

Quote:


No, because it is less likely that people will mistake inbreeding for breeding. And if you include the reference to the Koran people are more likely to realise that Moses is talking about a group defined by religion, not race. Basically, by including the context, the actual meaning becomes far clearer. This is what people mean when they say you deliberately mislead by stripping the context. You are lying in order to further the Islamic victimhood industry.

Quote:


Don't be silly Gandalf. Negroes are inbred is racist. Inbred itself is not racist. Nor is Muslim. Nor is stupid. Nor is it racist if you combine them.

Racism requires a reference to a race. Not a religion. Not a profession. Not a hat. Sexism requires a reference to sex. Not species. Not skin colour. Classism requires a reference to class. Ageism requires a reference to age. Are you getting the picture? You cannot just say "ooh that's bad, let's call anything bad sexism because you cannot always tell what sex a person is anyway, and anyone who thinks sexism has a real meaning must be sexist. Sex is a fake group so why not call references to other fake groups sexist." To do so destroys the meaning of the word and belittles the genuine victims of sexism, just as your efforts to include any old fake group (eg Muslims) in racism belittles the genuine victims of racism - regardless of whether Muslims are genuine victims of something else.

Aussie wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:03pm:


Oh, I think FD's obliged to detail quite a lot of things after this thread, don't you?

He won't tell me though. Maybe I need a cunning sock.

Can I be you for a bit, G?

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:


We're not talking about the beliefs you project on to me, but sure, if you insist Muhammad slaughtered jews out of a sense of racial superiority, then calling him racist is logically consistent. Just don't pretend that I hold the same view about him and think you are cleverly wedging me.

What I was particularly interested in the idea that "racially" identifying Aborigines for the purposes of compensating them for the blatant institutionalised racism they suffered for over 200 years - is somehow demonstrating a sense of racial superiority. You still haven't explained that one for me. I think your last word on that was to falsely claim I said identifying race alone is racist, or something.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:


Thats just dumb FD. How can you have a racial marker for the purpose of identifying ethno-cultural groups - if there are no ethno-cultural groups involved in the first place?

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:


No. But many people clearly do believe so. Issuevoter and others regularly brand me a "traitor to my kind". Soren/Frank "racialises" me by insisting that I am lying about my devoutness to Islam - since only the tinted races could think so stupidly. See, because I am white, I have an inherently "smarter" brain. He regularly runs with this theme - most recently describing how tinted muslims are the most barbaric and backward in their beliefs, while white converts are tempered by their whiteness.

Isn't it funny - When demonstrating my own beliefs, its always me who is standing up for what you lot always insist Islam is - nothing but an ideology/set of beliefs (ie not a race/ethnicity). Yet its the same people who somehow see me as belonging to, or pretending to belong to some alien "race" while necessarily betraying my own kind. You yourself betray such thinking whenever you try and insult me with phrases like "typical muslim answer", "..spoken like a true muslim" etc - as if muslims are this great big monolith with a hive mind - with a sinister agenda to be tricky and deceitful.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:


Thats funny, When I heard him defining a group by their inbreeding and stupidity, I must have mistook that for a group that is defined by inbreeding and stupidity. Silly me.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:


So you've said. And "reference to a race" can also mean a reference to a made up race - like "sand negro". And what makes it a "race"? - FD says so. Even though the term is regularly used to identify multiple what you would call "races" - including arabs and Afghans and Berbers - and that in reality the label is far more about identifying muslims who live in a rather broad region that is characterised by sand. So there you have it, racism must be based on race - according to FD, but 'race' can mean pretty much anything, and it doesn't have to be based on any actual "race" (which hasn't even been properly defined). Yet FD also gets to decide which made up, random, not-specific-to-any-actual-race "races" can apply to "racism" - but has absolutely no criteria for determining that. Hence the made up group "sand negro" definitely applies to racism - even though its a made up race with no grounding in any actual "race" - but another made up group, lets call it "stupid inbred muslims" cannot be racist - even though it is just as made up and just as inapplicable to any actual 'race' as 'sand negro'.

Gandalf, do you concede that your definition of racism is circular, because a key part of it is "racialising" groups? Are you going to explain what that means?

Quote:


Yes Gandalf, it is stupid. Do you deny claiming that doctors or other professions can be a marker for the purpose of racism?

Quote:


You are drawing a very long bow there Gandalf. Did you ask any of these people if they believed so before insisting they clearly do? Pretty much the entirety of your argument now rests on replacing what people actually said with various "reinterpretations," often based on fundamental ignorance of key concepts like inbreeding

Quote:


The only person here who has actually invoked the hive mind argument is you, and you did so in order to support genocide. That is one of the most f'd up racist things I have seen posted on this board, and it came from the person who wants to expand the definition of racism to the point it loses meaning.

Quote:


Inbreeding is not a race either. Nor is stupid. To clarify, did Moses say that all inbred people are Muslim, or that all Muslims are inbred? If it is the latter, why do you insist the group is defined by inbreeding? Do I need to draw a venn diagram for you?

Quote:


What is the distinction you are making here? All races are arbitrary in some way. Just like sexism is based on blurry grouping and ageism is entirely arbitrary.

Quote:


I gave you my definition earlier. No-one has made any effort to pull it apart.

Quote:


The rabbit hole just got even deeper. What on earth are you talking about Gandalf? Are you really that committed to making Muslims the victims?

Quote:


Do you have a problem with the definition of race I put forward?

Quote:


What are the "actual" races Gandalf?

Quote:


Gandalf, you stated earlier that you concede you were wrong about how inbreeding works. But you never clarified what you conceded. Perhaps now would be a good time. Perhaps you still misunderstand what it means to say that inbreeding affects the intelligence of offspring. FYI, it has nothing to do with racism.

Gandalf, do you concede that your definition of racism is circular, because a key part of it is "racialising" groups? Are you going to explain what that means?

Do you deny claiming that doctors or other professions can be a marker for the purpose of racism?

Do you think it is racist to justify the genocide of a whole tribe of Jews by insisting they were a mindless collective of traitors?

Why do you think that all references to racial subgroups from the middle east and surrounds are actually a reference to Muslims?

What are the "actual" races you keep talking about?

Quote:


Whichever way you define it, it is still a race.

Quote:


Pull what apart? I gave you a definition of race. You have not touched it. You were so busy trying to change the topic of the thread to anything but "what is racism" that you could not bring yourself to respond.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:


It didn't make sense the first time you asked. Its not going to suddenly make sense if you ask it 100 more times.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:


using your definition of race - you know the one you keep pretending I never touch, and the one that doesn't apply to 'sand negro'.

Do you deny claiming that doctors or other professions can be a marker for the purpose of racism?

Do you think it is racist to justify the genocide of a whole tribe of Jews by insisting they were a mindless collective of traitors?

Why do you think that all references to racial subgroups from the middle east and surrounds are actually a reference to Muslims?

Quote:


How did you do that without referring to the definition?

Quote:


You definition of racism refers to people "racialising". That is a circular definition.

Quote:


You hare the one bainging on about "actual" races, not me. What are they?