Sad, yet so true...The Khan wrote:Obama didn't magically end black and white division, never will.
Couldn't have put it better myself The Khan!
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
Sad, yet so true...The Khan wrote:Obama didn't magically end black and white division, never will.
The mail flaw of the democracy: Idiots who can vote by mere glance at the individual, and imagining the POTUS rules the country like a RTS game.domcoppinger wrote:Sad, yet so true...The Khan wrote:Obama didn't magically end black and white division, never will.
Couldn't have put it better myself The Khan!
I prefer moon wells. The water doubles as healthcare.fool wrote:I personally would vote for the candidate who promises to construct additional pylons.
They are the FEMA agents.domcoppinger wrote:Yeah but every time that I take a bath in one these strange blue orbs come out of the nearby forest and harass me!
point is not to directly changing this, more of attempting to force people to live and open up one tabuu(not necessary increasing equality at all) and I will get more laughs when reading the american media.The Khan wrote:Dear god.Hullu Hevonen wrote:Maybe a miniority female president would brake some taboos and lessen discrimination somewhat.
You cannot be that far from reality.
The president's physical aspects only affect the voting trend, not the actions.
We had a female prime minister with much "feminine equality" hoo-hah and buzz. Her incredible failures made the rest of the country hate the notion of a female leader.
Obama didn't magically end black and white division, never will.
LolThe Khan wrote:They are the FEMA agents.domcoppinger wrote:Yeah but every time that I take a bath in one these strange blue orbs come out of the nearby forest and harass me!
making sure you don't waste too much water.
That a person can be "racist"...Hullu Hevonen wrote:...the only other race in the human species was Homo neanderthalensis, but we "modern" humans killed them off...
...when the very definition of racism is "The belief that one RACE is superior to another". The two points there are mutually exclusive!Hullu Hevonen wrote:So it is racist to even belive that Obama's(or anyone elses) skin colour constitutes another race
Ok, now that I don't get!Hullu Hevonen wrote:Lol
Moon wells would not be possible without Russian consent
USA don't have the shuttles to transport water from the moon, but instead run by Russia. I agree , Though I don't agree with you about races and think it is racist to class someone another race. We are all the same without the same apperances. Dogs are different, the smallest and biggest dogs, though in theory they can reproduce, but in reality it would cause both dogs death. Humans don't have this problem, plus our appearences are relativaly minor if compared to other species, we have different colour variation and minor facial/bodily differences, every minor new variation dose not costitute a new race, if it would be so, then I would be a new race from my father because i'm not the same. "Appearances is not skin deep".domcoppinger wrote:
Ahhhh! No Moon Wells was a reference to Warcraft 3, that is unless I was the only one making the reference and everyone else was on about the actual moon!Hullu Hevonen wrote:USA don't have the shuttles to transport water from the moon, but instead run by Russia.
RaceHullu Hevonen wrote:I agree , Though I don't agree with you about races and think it is racist to class someone another race.
On what are you basing this statement? I can find no evidence what so ever as to dogs being killed by interbreeding! Certainly certain breeds of dogs have been shown to have pups with higher rates of problems, such as cancer, if they interbreed but that is the absolute extent of the problem as far as I can find!Hullu Hevonen wrote:We are all the same without the same apperances. Dogs are different, the smallest and biggest dogs, though in theory they can reproduce, but in reality it would cause both dogs death.
This I never claimed, however if you read up on the criteria for a race you will understand where the cut-off between individual differences and large differences between groups of humans is.Hullu Hevonen wrote:Humans don't have this problem, plus our appearences are relativaly minor if compared to other species, we have different colour variation and minor facial/bodily differences, every minor new variation dose not costitute a new race,
How? The only way that apperance is not skin deep is if you are reffering to bone structure or body size... Other wise by the very nature of appearance (what you observe about someone's "look") it has to be "skin deep"... we arn't able to see any further into a person after all!Hullu Hevonen wrote:if it would be so, then I would be a new race from my father because i'm not the same. "Appearances is not skin deep".
domcoppinger wrote:Ahhhh! No Moon Wells was a reference to Warcraft 3, that is unless I was the only one making the reference and everyone else was on about the actual moon!Hullu Hevonen wrote:USA don't have the shuttles to transport water from the moon, but instead run by Russia.
lol, missed that point..RaceHullu Hevonen wrote:I agree , Though I don't agree with you about races and think it is racist to class someone another race.
It is not something I believe or think in so much as it is a fact, a race is:
I contest this definition (sorry)
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. well, I am less "distinguished" from my father than a person from africa with dark skin colour, but still i'm more "distinguished" from an person with dark skin colour from africa than my father, due to transmitted physical characteristics. So I am a different race from my mother, my father, my african fellow, and everyone, great every person is a different race, even twins cause they have "less".
According to this dictionary a group is a number of persons, 1 is a number, 2 is a number....
So basically you can think I am one race, my neigboor may think I belong to his race, I may think i'm alone... so what really am I??? this is an invalid definition, too unspecified
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.What if I don't recognize my geographic national etc history, am I raceless? well that sucks!
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.So now i'm the same race as my father!!! but wait! uhm have you ever heard of haplogroups, we all have the same forefather and foremother, little like an eve and adam... fffff... now you an I are the same! awww!
4. Humans considered as a group.Am a student, other Humans are that too, we are the same race!!!
5. Biologyuhm... I have 2 eyeballs and consist of something like 70% water etc
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.wow, so some noob behind a desk gets to jugde me and tell me what race I am! great!
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.I don't even want to get into this one
Racism
So what have we learned from this, the definition of "race" can be anything living and anybody at multiply time. I can for exaple be a million different raceses at the same time i'm raceless... this makes no sence at all, so the definition is invalid. This definition is not properly defined, it lets everyone jugde everyone and label others as they se fit, this labelling often cause discrimination that is called "racism", so to even lable someone is to assign a certain value and meaning to that person in your head, due to this people are discriminated against.
Racism is:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.well yeah! but that is not what i'm contesting, because the definition of race is invalid, so if someone thinks he's suppirior then you, because of your appearance, then he's just a D*** H***
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.Then it's just discrimination... "Racisim" is already discrimination, so why have 2 words for the same thing?
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.I know, I hate moskitos, i'm a 'racist'. (an moskito is an organism right?)
To start with this means that even if you were right about there only being one race by very definition racism could then not exist! However different races do exist
Rasicm don't exist, it is directed discrimination by D*** H**** who are disillusioned and think that they are something more than they really are and their victims are something less than they really are.
On what are you basing this statement? I can find no evidence what so ever as to dogs being killed by interbreeding! Certainly certain breeds of dogs have been shown to have pups with higher rates of problems, such as cancer, if they interbreed but that is the absolute extent of the problem as far as I can find!Hullu Hevonen wrote:We are all the same without the same apperances. Dogs are different, the smallest and biggest dogs, though in theory they can reproduce, but in reality it would cause both dogs death.
try to breed a male Great Dane and a female Chihuahua
googled it for yaThis I never claimed, however if you read up on the criteria for a race you will understand where the cut-off between individual differences and large differences between groups of humans is.Hullu Hevonen wrote:Humans don't have this problem, plus our appearences are relativaly minor if compared to other species, we have different colour variation and minor facial/bodily differences, every minor new variation dose not costitute a new race,
I suggest that if you read this illuminating article you might better understand it.
There is really nothing there to convince me, even Haplogroup genetics(which I mentioned to you above) are only a marker of "ancestry", meaning that 30% of african amiericans can for exapmle have R1 y-chromosome haplogroup and be of "European" decent, but still be very close in skin colour and appearance to other africanamericans.
Even your wikipedia link is screwed up, already the first line states "Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity". heritable phenotypic characteristics; So if I look, move, behave a sertain way I am another or same race? geographic ancestry; So boers cant be africanamerican because their ancestors are from africa? physical appearance; Hey I am pale, but my neigboor is sligtly less pale and my other neigboor is dark skinned. SO you define one as latio while I define the same as white... so what is my neigboor? ethnicity; My neigboor is Christian and the other one is Muslim! Their still largely the same in every other way, so the christian one is "white" and the muslim one is a "terrorist"! yeah that sounds good!
Don't you se something seriously wrong with this quote already?
How? The only way that apperance is not skin deep is if you are reffering to bone structure or body size... Other wise by the very nature of appearance (what you observe about someone's "look") it has to be "skin deep"... we arn't able to see any further into a person after all!Hullu Hevonen wrote:if it would be so, then I would be a new race from my father because i'm not the same. "Appearances is not skin deep".
Really though this article highlights everything I am trying to say in as perfect a manner as I could ever have hoped for!
uhm, not really, you should read it yourself.
take a look, quoting the article:
-"Most of the other categories (genus, family, order, etc) are positioned above the species level, while only a few are in the sub-species level. The latter, which include variety, subspecies, and race, are poorly defined and ambiguous." Whoops. Take a look at my replies at the dictionary section.
-"Any deviation from the holotype, the specimen on which the description of a new species is based, is referred to as a variety, even when the deviation is in a single morphological character."- I did talk about variations etc earlier
-"Race is used by taxonomists either as a synonymn of sub-species or as a designation of a local population within a sub-species." you told us your self that Neanderthals was a sub-species, so we are humans, neanderthals our subspecies, so per definition of the quote, neanderthals are another race. this is clear. What about africanamericans or latinos? they aren't defined as a sub-species, they are definied as humans, as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Like you and I, not as Homo neanderthalis or Homo sapiens neanderthalis(a sub specie) or similarly. one more point to support this is that modern humans have more minor differences with each other than modern humans and neanderthals.
-"Different variants, subspecies, or races of the same species are either known or expected to interbreed if given the opportunity." True, we reproduced with the ''race" Neanderthals and we continually do with other "variant"s of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
-"Note that only a single character is enough to distinguish a 'variety', and SOME distinguishing designation is certainly called for between Europeans and Asians. Thus we can conservatively say Euros and Asians are different varieties" whoops again.. Asians aren't a different race, neighter europeans
Should continue with that article?
I think Obama will win a very very close victory, He will have the tuffest resistance from Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, cause they are more "moderate" and he will therefore get the conservative votes(because hes a repub) and steal some of Obama's moderates. While the rest will get the conservative votes, but lose some moderates to Obama.Hundane wrote:Ok, too put it back on a election topic Ill make a prediction.
No matter who wins the Republican nomination the Powers That Be will keep the polling numbers about even all the way to November with whoever is behind closing the gap just days before the election.
Obama will then win a very decisive victory.
Just my prediction. Not saying I like it or who Im voting for, its just my prediction.
I'd say dead old voters are more likely to be repub...Hullu Hevonen wrote:I think Obama will win a very very close victory, He will have the tuffest resistance from Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, cause they are more "moderate" and he will therefore get the conservative votes(because hes a repub) and steal some of Obama's moderates. While the rest will get the conservative votes, but lose some moderates to Obama.Hundane wrote:Ok, too put it back on a election topic Ill make a prediction.
No matter who wins the Republican nomination the Powers That Be will keep the polling numbers about even all the way to November with whoever is behind closing the gap just days before the election.
Obama will then win a very decisive victory.
Just my prediction. Not saying I like it or who Im voting for, its just my prediction.
Also there is about 2 million dead voters this year eligible to vote , maybe they might give the conservatives some boost?