[quote]Sikkario wrote:
In Puerto Rico and Bolivia, whites identify as whites. That is like Spaniards whites, and we are proud to be Criollos (Meaning American people of European descent). We are shrouded in the same mystique and noble regard, that MTV places on african-americans and latinos along with the ultra trendy whites who make the cut by acting black enough in Anglo culture.
I’ve never met a Latino that was anything but proud of being mostly Spanish, in fact many of those of mixed blood choose to identify as white Spanish, rather than mixed race.
In the same way, a girl of mixed parentage in Angelo culture, feels it more noble to identify as black.
I think white anglo-saxons, are a sad confused people, I don’t understand their racial remorse.[/quote]
Well, we’re not really doing all that well in the breeding department. So, when my grandchild is a minority, maybe they’ll organize.
Hmm, and if they were straight religious men who didn’t feel comfortable with homosexuals working out with them?[/quote]
That would be called bigotry. There is guy who I “assume” is gay (I only say that because I haven’t outright asked even though it is very obvious) who works at my clinic as an assistant. It would be completely wrong of me to claim I don’t want to work with him based on sexuality.
Obviously, some guys who lost their legs and who ask to use the gym at an earlier time by themselves so they don’t get trampled by students is not the same and never will be…at least not morally.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Organized white men are racists.[/quote]
Organized white men declaring that they are inherently superior by virtue of their genes, culture or whatever the fsck else are racists.
Organized white men trying to coerce Harvard into reverting a discriminatory decision are NOT racist. They are simply men, not lil’ bitches moaning in pity about their “plight”.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Who’s the group that’s got the most lawyers, guns and money? Women in burqas?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’d love to level a charge of hypocrisy, but I think it is just more a case that Lefties haven’t put any thought into the matter.
Level it, because I have put some thought into it. There are nuances involved. First of all, if any group (white, black, lesbian or zoroastrian) just said that they wanted to occupy the gym to exclude others because they are different then I think you would have a case.
However, these are women who, according to their religion, do not like to be scantily clad in front of men.
To return to my example of handicapped people. If they asked for the gym for a couple of hours a week because they have a special need, I could understand that also. They are not excluding because of race, nationality, gender, etc. They are excluding because of a special need, requirement.
Now, you may still have a point, but isn’t there a difference between someone wanting exclusive access to a facility because of a special need as opposed to someone wanting to exclude just because they dont like a certain race, religion, gender, etc, isnt there???
[/quote]
What if that same religion teaches that Jews and Christians must wear special clothing, pay a special tax, not construct churches, etc? Do they have a right to impose their beliefs then?
Hmm, and if they were straight religious men who didn’t feel comfortable with homosexuals working out with them?
That would be called bigotry. There is guy who I “assume” is gay (I only say that because I haven’t outright asked even though it is very obvious) who works at my clinic as an assistant. It would be completely wrong of me to claim I don’t want to work with him based on sexuality.
Obviously, some guys who lost their legs and who ask to use the gym at an earlier time by themselves so they don’t get trampled by students is not the same and never will be…at least not morally.[/quote]
What if muslim men demand that they can’t work out with homosexuals. Or…wait for it, they can’t train with women? If you accomadated the muslim woman, why not the muslim man? Quick Harvard men, get a muslim man to ask for a male only hour!
If there was a group of white protestant males for their place in society and civil freedoms, I wouldn’t be offended as a Latino.
I’d probably find them more reasonable to deal with than the poor African American-Homosexual-Angry Woman-Tree Hugger-Illegal Latino alliance that some how has come to represent the face of minorities in the USA.
I think Latinos have more to relate to organized protestant anglos, than we do with the gay-apologist-environmentalist-illegal immigrant alliance that is usually tried to be pushed on us.
Muslims are a minority in the US, let 'em own slaves!
The Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization by their definition. Does that mean that all Christians are Ku Klux Klan members? The KKK selectively pulled passages out of the Bible to justify their actions.
You can find the poltical gamut among Christians or Islams, Left to Right. Religious texts are often vague enough that everbody can find something in them supporting their cause.
It would be ludicrous to call all Christians KKK members as it would be to insinuate by virtue of that document that all Muslims are potential slave owners.
[/quote]
That didn’t take long.
Alright, let’s test your claim. Can you show us where in the Bible or the history of Christian tradition it is taught that white men are morally and genetically superior to non-whites?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Organized white men are racists.
Organized white men declaring that they are inherently superior by virtue of their genes, culture or whatever the fsck else are racists.
Organized white men trying to coerce Harvard into reverting a discriminatory decision are NOT racist. They are simply men, not lil’ bitches moaning in pity about their “plight”.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Who’s the group that’s got the most lawyers, guns and money? Women in burqas? [/quote]
I bet the greatest lawyers in the republic couldn’t get white christian males an exclusive hour to themselves at a Harvard gym. Muchless simply have Harvard fold just by asking. And how do guns even come up in this?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Level it, because I have put some thought into it. There are nuances involved. First of all, if any group (white, black, lesbian or zoroastrian) just said that they wanted to occupy the gym to exclude others because they are different then I think you would have a case.
However, these are women who, according to their religion, do not like to be scantily clad in front of men.
[/quote]
Great, no problem. Now what does this have to do with everybody else, and why should they be catered to, when nobody else is? This is reverse discrimination based on religion.
This is a bad example. First, religion IS a choice. Many may not think it is much of a choice, but nobody is forcing them to follow these beliefs, not in this country anyways. I don’t know many handicapped people that choose to be in their state. Second, I don’t see any handicapped people asking for special treatment at the expense of others. Widening aisles, adding wheelchair ramps, even throwing in some extra equipment for the handicapped is fine, these things will not exclude anybody. Now, if handicapped people were asking for special time when the non-handicapped were not allowed this would be a problem akin to banning all handicapped people. Does either seem right?
The difference is only in the reasoning for the benefits, the outcome is the same. Discrimating because one doesn’t like a group is just as bad as discriminating because one feels an entitlement based on their own demographic.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hmm, and if they were straight religious men who didn’t feel comfortable with homosexuals working out with them?
That would be called bigotry. There is guy who I “assume” is gay (I only say that because I haven’t outright asked even though it is very obvious) who works at my clinic as an assistant. It would be completely wrong of me to claim I don’t want to work with him based on sexuality.
Obviously, some guys who lost their legs and who ask to use the gym at an earlier time by themselves so they don’t get trampled by students is not the same and never will be…at least not morally.
What if muslim men demand that they can’t work out with homosexuals. Or…wait for it, they can’t train with women? If you accomadated the muslim woman, why not the muslim man? Quick Harvard men, get a muslim man to ask for a male only hour![/quote]
Having fun? Homosexuals are pretty much everywhere. Unless you are claiming they are such a minority that they are ONLY found in this gym, please quit.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
If there was a group of white protestant males for their place in society and civil freedoms, I wouldn’t be offended as a Latino.
I’d probably find them more reasonable to deal with than the poor African American-Homosexual-Angry Woman-Tree Hugger-Illegal Latino alliance that some how has come to represent the face of minorities in the USA.
I think Latinos have more to relate to organized protestant anglos, than we do with the gay-apologist-environmentalist-illegal immigrant alliance that is usually tried to be pushed on us.[/quote]
I tend to agree. This Mexican guy who posts on my blog would agree with most of the things you just said. I try to convince other whites of the things you just pointed out, and they start looking around nervously or at the floor. Definitely makes me popular at parties though.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Anyways, the point lost on you is that the Muslims are attempting to impose Islamic values inch-by-inch on the kuffar. [/quote]
Yes, this is no doubt true in some cases. Do you think it
is true of all Muslims? If so, then why didn’t the Muslim girls ask for seperate gyms for men and women…not just for a couple of hours, but permanently?
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
If there was a group of white protestant males for their place in society and civil freedoms, I wouldn’t be offended as a Latino.
I’d probably find them more reasonable to deal with than the poor African American-Homosexual-Angry Woman-Tree Hugger-Illegal Latino alliance that some how has come to represent the face of minorities in the USA.
I think Latinos have more to relate to organized protestant anglos, than we do with the gay-apologist-environmentalist-illegal immigrant alliance that is usually tried to be pushed on us.[/quote]
Damnit, you’ve convinced me. I’m starting a white fellar club. I’ll invite Puerto-Ricans out of respect to you for convincing me. And I might consider making some of my black friends honorary whites so they could attend. Trust me, if I didn’t I’d never hear the end of it from them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sikkario wrote:
In Puerto Rico and Bolivia, whites identify as whites. That is like Spaniards whites, and we are proud to be Criollos (Meaning American people of European descent). We are shrouded in the same mystique and noble regard, that MTV places on african-americans and latinos along with the ultra trendy whites who make the cut by acting black enough in Anglo culture.
I’ve never met a Latino that was anything but proud of being mostly Spanish, in fact many of those of mixed blood choose to identify as white Spanish, rather than mixed race.
In the same way, a girl of mixed parentage in Angelo culture, feels it more noble to identify as black.
I think white anglo-saxons, are a sad confused people, I don’t understand their racial remorse.
You should read “White Guilt” by Shelby Steele. [/quote]
There are still some of out there without racial remorse, and proud to be a WASP. The problem is that we are all apparently bigots because of it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hmm, and if they were straight religious men who didn’t feel comfortable with homosexuals working out with them?
That would be called bigotry. There is guy who I “assume” is gay (I only say that because I haven’t outright asked even though it is very obvious) who works at my clinic as an assistant. It would be completely wrong of me to claim I don’t want to work with him based on sexuality.
Obviously, some guys who lost their legs and who ask to use the gym at an earlier time by themselves so they don’t get trampled by students is not the same and never will be…at least not morally.
What if muslim men demand that they can’t work out with homosexuals. Or…wait for it, they can’t train with women? If you accomadated the muslim woman, why not the muslim man? Quick Harvard men, get a muslim man to ask for a male only hour!
Having fun? Homosexuals are pretty much everywhere. Unless you are claiming they are such a minority that they are ONLY found in this gym, please quit.
[/quote]
Why? Muslim women didn’t feel comfortable working out alongside men. Religion and sexualality are the two big factors. By the way, what do you think of muslim men wanting an hour set aside to avoid women?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Anyways, the point lost on you is that the Muslims are attempting to impose Islamic values inch-by-inch on the kuffar.
Yes, this is no doubt true in some cases. Do you think it
is true of all Muslims? If so, then why didn’t the Muslim girls ask for seperate gyms for men and women…not just for a couple of hours, but permanently?
[/quote]
They have to do things incrementally. Flying imams here, Muslim cab drivers not picking up those with seeing eye dogs or alcohol there. Don’t forget the fact that no criticism of Islam or Mohammed is possible in the West anymore without Muslim threats and whining. Pretty soon, a mosque might be built in your area. At first, it will start out as a level-roofed Islamic center. But next, as in Saint Louis, they’ll want a minaret. A large one. But no plans for speakers, (at this time), we kuffar are told. But then later down the road, speakers are put in. Large ones. Then you get to hear this: