The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
So do you have a pony in this show?Have you thought about asking them? Not a member
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So do you have a pony in this show?Have you thought about asking them? Not a member
So do you have a pony in this show?
Is it because they subscribe to a plagiarist who stole from a proto-fascist racist like Ragnar Redbeard? Is it because their philosophy is inherently racist? Just asking questions.
Well I gave names and Saint Frankenstein gave a link. Not only can I give names, I can give addresses, phone numbers, their place of business and the bus lines they take.Does it? Evidence?
Well I gave names and Saint Frankenstein gave a link. Not only can I give names, I can give addresses, phone numbers, their place of business and the bus lines they take.
Well I gave names and Saint Frankenstein gave a link. Not only can I give names, I can give addresses, phone numbers, their place of business and the bus lines they take.
I posted a link on the first page.How about fred bloggs, we all can give names. I and several others have asked for evidence
I posted a link on the first page.
Evidence for the claim?
Long before white supremacists? Arthur Desmond was a a Social Darwinist and a white supremacist. You think white supremacism was created last week or something?However, this book was written long before there was such a thing as a white supremacist
Because naming names and showing evidence isn't evidenceYes its interesting but hardly classes as evidence
Long before white supremacists? Arthur Desmond was a a Social Darwinist and a white supremacist. You think white supremacism was created last week or something?
I read the ****ing book. It is a racist diatribe.The Might is Right clears the issue up immediately -- it focuses nothing on the color of skin, but rather present the philosophy as absolute rule of nature ignoring race concepts completely.
I read the ****ing book. It is a racist diatribe.
Be in denial, then. Your choice.Yes its interesting but hardly classes as evidence
Now you are trolling.As I've stated before, in the context of the mindset of the time, it's not. That's your modern revisionism of their historical understanding and your own bias. I don't agree with everything written in that book, but I certainly understand the mindset and acceptable terms to use change over time.
Do we use terms like "Chinaman" and "Coolie" anymore to refer to anyone? It offends you, fine, but it has nothing to do with what the author was doing. He was just using those terms to differentiate between groups of people -- you're injecting anti-racial sentiment into his writing. Effectively, you're using a very basal false equivalence to found your interpretation of the text. You might have read it, but you certainly don't understand it.
P.S. -- Here's one of the most "racist" passages:
"You have only to look at some men, to know that they
belong to an inferior breed. Take the Negro for example. His
narrow cranial development, his prognathous jaw, his projecting
lips, his wide nasal aperture, his simian disposition, his want of
forethought, originality and mental capacity: are all peculiarities
strictly inferior. Similar language may be applied to the Chinaman,
the Coolie, the Kanaka, the Jew, and to the rotten-boned, city
degenerates of Anglo-Saxondom, rich and poor. Vile indeed are the
inhabitants of those noxious cattle kraals: London, Liverpool, New
York, Chicago, New Orleans: and yet, in those places is heaped up
the golden plunder of the world."
He rips nearly everything from black to white here, so which race is he attacking? He's not... He's attacking the very idea that race matters. "Might is Right", survival of the fittest, is the only natural law -- and it'll sort them out is much of the point he's trying to make. My modern mind doesn't like his presentation, but it'd be barely a blip when he wrote it.
Because naming names and showing evidence isn't evidence
Be in denial, then. Your choice.
I saw it. Still in denial.See my above post