PDA

View Full Version : What ethnic group is the most inferior?



Dubyasux
06-09-2005, 11:24 AM
Lets talk what we don't usually talk.

Preecey
06-09-2005, 11:27 AM
None at all.
________
Jorley cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Jorley)

Dubyasux
06-09-2005, 11:46 AM
Then you are just an idealist who thinks "everyone is equal" living in a utopic world

JohnnyNemesis
06-09-2005, 11:47 AM
Dubyasux, your idiocy shocks me.

Dubyasux
06-09-2005, 11:56 AM
nobody is EQUAL, got it ?

FeaR
06-09-2005, 12:14 PM
Damn idiot.Is this a realy a poll?And i can't see usa people in there.

Mota Boy
06-09-2005, 01:49 PM
Then you are just an idealist who thinks "everyone is equal" living in a utopic world
Hmmmm, which race are you?

Preecey
06-09-2005, 01:51 PM
Hey- I'm no hippy. This isn't a free world and some people are better than others. It's just that race doesn't come into it.
________
Herbalaire Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/herbalaire-vaporizer)

Preecey
06-09-2005, 01:52 PM
Dubyasux, your idiocy shocks me.
Glad someone said that.
________
White Girls Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/white-girls/)

felix_leiter
06-09-2005, 02:06 PM
Dubyasux, along with being a complete fucking idiot and racist, you can't even get your feeble racial definitions right.

3 "types" of white. The Caucasian region is in Eurasia, and as far as I knew there was more than one of those categories in the USA.

Arabs???

Little_Miss_1565
06-09-2005, 07:26 PM
"Arabs" are counted among the greater Asian demographic, and there's no reason to have three different "white" categories. Though while we're on the subject of things for which there is no reason for their existance, this thread was created for shock value and is therefore boring.

SkunkIt
06-09-2005, 07:31 PM
Lets talk what we don't usually talk.You're an idiot.

Vera
06-10-2005, 06:01 AM
You still forgot Indians who're not Arabs, fuckwit.

And these racial threads are still really fucking stupid.

Also, something funny I've noticed about BBS polls (yes, even mine). No one EVER puts an option there that says "other".

Sin Studly
06-10-2005, 06:40 AM
Well duh, if they haven't thought of it then it obviously doesn't exist.

I can't vote for any of the ethnicities I hate.

Aimeht
06-10-2005, 06:44 AM
I don't think none is.

Sinister
06-10-2005, 03:47 PM
racism sucks. sexism too. any discrimination, in fact, is the result of an extreme lack of intellectual capacities. thats it.

neocon58
06-10-2005, 06:09 PM
You boycott voting, but hypocriticize yourself by showing intrest anyway. And just click on view results. Idiot.

indeed.


*ten character limit*

Vera
06-11-2005, 09:18 AM
This amused me so much:


Blacks (the ones with curlie hair,and big lips)

Because it's so goddamn hard to know what a black person looks like!

RXP
06-11-2005, 11:41 AM
Depends what you mean by inferior? If you mean physically in strength terms than it's clearly ehiopians and other 'skinnies' who are extreme ectomorphs with very little muscle.

If you mean smarts wise eastern euros and chinkies seem to be better at maths. ANd black people are generally extremely stupid.

notoriousdoc
06-12-2005, 11:36 AM
Lets talk what we don't usually talk.

That post is written by something that is so stupid, if I took its tiny brain and rolled it down the edge of a razor blade, it would be like a lone car going down a six lane motorway. Dipshit, do yourself and everyone else a favour: disconnect your computer from the Internet.

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 11:39 AM
Well...I sure am glad that I voted, although we should've been able to have multiple votes. ;)

Preecey
06-12-2005, 11:40 AM
I refuse to vote on this poll because it's goddam stupid. Case closed.
________
California Medical Marijuana (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 11:41 AM
Dipshit, do yourself and everyone else a favor: disconnect your computer from the Internet.

PLEASE SAY THAT IS A TYPO!!!

Bloody Americanisation of British words...

Preecey
06-12-2005, 11:43 AM
PLEASE SAY THAT IS A TYPO!!!

Bloody Americanisation of British words...
You get so uptight about these things! But I must admit, I take care to include 'u's.
________
YOSELIN cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/YOSELIN)

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 11:47 AM
You get so uptight about these things! But I must admit, I take care to include 'u's.

Yes, yes I do - because I feel that it's important.

It shouldn't be a case of 'taking care' - I naturally include them; if I was to omit them i'd actually have to think about it.

"I am the grammar Fuhrer. All bow to my authority. I will crush all the inferior people under the soles of my jackboots, and any who question my motives will be eliminated. My punishment is being the bane of every other person's existence, because I'm constantly contradicting stupidity. Everyone will be gunning for me. My dreams of a master race of spellers and grammarians frighten the masses. I must always watch my back. If only my power could be used for good instead of evil."

notoriousdoc
06-12-2005, 11:49 AM
PLEASE SAY THAT IS A TYPO!!!

Bloody Americanisation of British words...

I did it to irritate you Jen, DUH! I was sat here waiting for you to say that

Preecey
06-12-2005, 11:51 AM
Yes, yes I do - because I feel that it's important.

It shouldn't be a case of 'taking care' - I naturally include them; if I was to omit them i'd actually have to think about it.

"I am the grammar Fuhrer. All bow to my authority. I will crush all the inferior people under the soles of my jackboots, and any who question my motives will be eliminated. My punishment is being the bane of every other person's existence, because I'm constantly contradicting stupidity. Everyone will be gunning for me. My dreams of a master race of spellers and grammarians frighten the masses. I must always watch my back. If only my power could be used for good instead of evil."
Bloody hell.
________
Flowerspicy (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/flowerspicy/)

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 11:54 AM
I did it to irritate you Jen, DUH! I was sat here waiting for you to say that

...........*grrrrrrrrrrrr* And I fell into your trap like a mouse into a mousetrap.



Bloody hell.

yeah, I'm thinking of changing my sig to that - if it wasn't for the fact that the Greek annoys certain individuals.

Preecey
06-12-2005, 11:55 AM
Greek isn't my forte. I like history in general though. Mainly British :D
________
SexyyyLips (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SexyyyLips)

notoriousdoc
06-12-2005, 11:57 AM
I'm gonna try to put a tipo or Amerikanism into all conversation with you now:D

Why not add a greek pot inscription into your sig

Preecey
06-12-2005, 12:00 PM
go fuck yourself. FAVOR. it's better. So its being on vacation instead of on holiday. And a million other words you've used to screw up english. My american english is more pure than your british.
Not entirely.
________
lesbians Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/lesbian-couples/)

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 12:01 PM
CURSES! :mad:

The sig thing is a good idea but they didn't really write a lot on pots (usually just who they fancied :p)


Preecey: yeah, history's pretty cool in general - great battles and historical figures etc. very cool.

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 12:04 PM
go fuck yourself. FAVOR. it's better. So its being on vacation instead of on holiday. And a million other words you've used to screw up english. My american english is more pure than your british.

...which is why it's called ENGLISH, because it's from ENGLAND...ever made that connection, yank? no? of course not because you're a dumb ass yank.

'God bless amerika':

http://members.fortunecity.com/terrorgate/images/ally-4.jpg

Vera
06-12-2005, 01:52 PM
Wow, that is so dumb.

The British spelling is not the "correct" one. I must say I do prefer it myself and tend to use more British sayings than American sayings because I like British English but that doesn't mean Americans or everyone else for that matter should use the British one.

English is not copyright to the English people, you know.

English is also spoken in Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada. They have their own accents and phrases and this is what makes English a rich, varied language and also a GLOBAL language that unites a lot of people.

You can't be a nazi about something like spelling, if it's CORRECT according to one system - the American or the British.

When someone spells it a "favur", then you have every right to go grammar nazi on them - but until they actually make a mistake, shut your fucking gob.

Preecey
06-12-2005, 01:55 PM
Wow, that is so dumb.

The British spelling is not the "correct" one. I must say I do prefer it myself and tend to use more British sayings than American sayings because I like British English but that doesn't mean Americans or everyone else for that matter should use the British one.

English is not copyright to the English people, you know.

English is also spoken in Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada. They have their own accents and phrases and this is what makes English a rich, varied language and also a GLOBAL language that unites a lot of people.

You can't be a nazi about something like spelling, if it's CORRECT according to one system - the American or the British.

When someone spells it a "favur", then you have every right to go grammar nazi on them - but until they actually make a mistake, shut your fucking gob.
Wrong- We had the first spelling. Dr Johnson (Jonson?) invented the dictionary. He showed that some British endings like val our and arm our were stemmed from French so therefore had to have those endings. Not just shorten them, like the Americans.
By the way, I'm not trying to get involved in this. Just providing you with a little historical fact. Carry on.
________
party Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/straight-couples/)

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 01:59 PM
When someone spells it a "favur", then you have every right to go grammar nazi on them - but until they actually make a mistake, shut your fucking gob.

Well actually, if I was to write 'favor' in an English exam it would count as a spelling error. Now, Notoriousdoc is English so his spelling was wrong and, hence, I was perfectly able to correct him.

Preecey
06-12-2005, 02:01 PM
Now, Notoriousdoc is English so his spelling was wrong and, hence, I was perfectly able to correct him.
Did you send him to a 're-education' camp?
________
Very_Bad Live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/very_bad)

Noodles is gay
06-12-2005, 02:08 PM
Did you send him to a 're-education' camp?

Certainly did - two harsh weeks at a SPAG camp over in Cambridgeshire.

*SPAG = Spelling, punctuation and grammar

Vera
06-12-2005, 04:16 PM
I know the British-English dictionary came first, I'm not fucking stupid. All I'm saying is that in TODAY'S WORLD, there are many ways to use the language and it's stupid to enforce one way of spelling when there are SO many places in the world where they speak English and the British system is not more pure or some shit like that.

I'm not saying the American system is superior, I'd say they're equal.

Also, the Oxford dictionary lists "favor" as an alternative spelling of "favour". You know, Oxford, the BRITISH dictionary?

You know what that means? Both spellings are ACCEPTABLE. So neither should be condemned as the ultimate evil or some shit like that. This just does my head in, honestly.

Given, he's British. But for God's SAKE, stop throwing a hissyfit over ONE fucking word and it's spelling and learn to accept that the language you speak has two STANDARDIZED ways of spelling certain words.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 02:43 AM
I tend to ignore the people who insist that everyone speak/write formal British. They are simply a case of the Anglophonics largest inferiority complex. Not to mention that it's British tradition (if not culture) to be imperialistic almost to a point of pointlessness.

Besides, American English, is the dominant English in the world, and no matter how much they like to claim otherwise, that's just the way it is, and the way it's gonna be.

Sin Studly
06-13-2005, 02:48 AM
English is also spoken in Australia,

If we speak English, then how come Americans have no idea what we're saying?

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 02:50 AM
If we speak English, then how come Americans have no idea what we're saying?
Because the only nation more inbred than America, is Australia. That, and Greece.

RXP
06-13-2005, 02:58 AM
I tend to ignore the people who insist that everyone speak/write formal British. They are simply a case of the Anglophonics largest inferiority complex. Not to mention that it's British tradition (if not culture) to be imperialistic almost to a point of pointlessness.


Any culture that is as old us us is imperialistic. It's human nature.

ALso i'm like you except with people who point out spelling mistakes. Wow they can spell, no doubt I have 1000x better analytical skills than them.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 03:24 AM
Any culture that is as old us us is imperialistic. It's human nature.

ALso i'm like you except with people who point out spelling mistakes. Wow they can spell, no doubt I have 1000x better analytical skills than them.
Danish culture is as old (if not older) and yet you don't find the imperialistic tendencies in it, as you do in the British. It's not human nature because human nature doesn't exist. It's British nature. America is a mix of culture that is fairly new and just as imperialistic (if not more so).

I too, once spent a lot of time on people's spelling. Once you realize that they don't intentionally misspell (and in many cases English is a second language) you begin to realize how ridiculously much you sucked back then.

Vera
06-13-2005, 03:37 AM
Well, apart from Greenland... Sort of.

Same with the Swedish culture, too.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 03:40 AM
Well, apart from Greenland... Sort of.

Same with the Swedish culture, too.
and the Pharoah islands (or is it Fairy Islands in English, I don't know. Færøerne.)

We however, gave most of our colonies independence without a bloody revolutionary war, things like that. And I don't think we get any real booty from Greenland or the Fairy Islands, I'm not sure why they are still part of the Kingdom but it's not a question I've researched. However, most Danes wouldn't care if we lost Greenland and the Fairy Islands. It's quite a different story about the Brits and their attitudes to land they shouldn't have their fingers in. The Conservative Party is blatantly imperialist (of course they are, it's part of British history, hence Conservative.)

RXP
06-13-2005, 03:41 AM
Danish culture is as old (if not older) and yet you don't find the imperialistic tendencies in it, as you do in the British. It's not human nature because human nature doesn't exist. It's British nature. America is a mix of culture that is fairly new and just as imperialistic (if not more so).



Danish weren't as powerful as teh Brits. Power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts........

I've always mantained that. That's why I think the US could be a hellava lot worse than it is and that's why I constantly seem to be defending them.

And human nature does exist, Marxists think we're too divorced from our animal instrincts. We are animals plain and simple. but hey, lets ont debate this cause we've done it before and it's one of those things like you either believe in or don;t.




I too, once spent a lot of time on people's spelling. Once you realize that they don't intentionally misspell (and in many cases English is a second language) you begin to realize how ridiculously much you sucked back then.

English isn't my second language but for some reason I have a hard time spelling. And people who do correct you do generally suck.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 03:48 AM
Danish weren't as powerful as teh Brits. Power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts........

I've always mantained that. That's why I think the US could be a hellava lot worse than it is and that's why I constantly seem to be defending them.

And human nature does exist, Marxists think we're too divorced from our animal instrincts. We are animals plain and simple. but hey, lets ont debate this cause we've done it before and it's one of those things like you either believe in or don;t.

Marxists generally think human beings are just animals like all other animals. Imperialism is too complicated to be related to instinct. but yeah you're right, this could get tiresome.

Obviously you are oversimplifying the situation. Denmark had a pretty strong Empire at one point, this is a nation, who's high-point in culture, was the travelling, raping, and plundering of more cultured places. We were just never like the British or the French. The French too, were incredibly Imperialist. Yet they don't have the same tendencies. Quite the opposite, they have very strong anti-imperialist tendencies.

I would say that in England, it probably has a lot to do with a continued media conflict in the "Empire" itself.

And oddly enough, if Iraq had become a US state, and then tried to rebel, more Americans (especially in the South) would probably sympathize with them, than the way it is today.

RXP
06-13-2005, 03:51 AM
OH! you were talking about now. I never knew that.

Well my argument would be:

the french aren't like us because they are pussies cause of what happened in WW1 & WW2.

And I always thought that Marxists thought that humans were divorced from their animal selves. That's why they believe alturistic communism can be achived because peopel's 'rationale communal selves' will be greater than their selfish 'property' selves.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 03:56 AM
OH! you were talking about now. I never knew that.

Well my argument would be:

the french aren't like us because they are pussies cause of what happened in WW1 & WW2.

And I always thought that Marxists thought that humans were divorced from their animal selves. That's why they believe alturistic communism can be achived because peopel's 'rationale communal selves' will be greater than their selfish 'property' selves.
They may have gotten their asses kicked in WW2. But even afterwards they were still Imperialist powers. Obviously the war in Vietnam and Tunisia are proof of this. Very bloody wars.

I don't know what was written by other Marxists, but I would assume they would along the same line of thinking as myself in that, humans do have basica animal instinct, but these simply aren't complicated enough to affect the complicated behavioural patterns and actions we make in the world of foreign policy.

RXP
06-13-2005, 03:59 AM
Foreign policy can very easily be devolved into animal instinct by doing the following:

Country = family

rape, pillage, etc. of another country (family) = my faimly being better off.

That's what I figure anyway.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 07:30 AM
Foreign policy can very easily be devolved into animal instinct by doing the following:

Country = family

rape, pillage, etc. of another country (family) = my faimly being better off.

That's what I figure anyway.
I've always found it to be far more difficult. Simply because of the different class layers of society.

War can be good for the top. Sustained war, in many countries today (like Moldova for example) is very good for the powers that be, in the conflict. And all the soldiers, obviously, have jobs there. However it's bad for everybody else. And different parts of the conflict can be good for the elite, the perfect moment right before the peak of the conflict or whatever can be better than the actual conflict itself, and far better than any peace.

And then again, take North Korea. We give them food because it's cheaper than wasting human life on them.

And each country has 1000x different contradictions going on, between eastern and western interests, between corporate and moral interests, social and economic interests, religious and political on and on.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 07:42 AM
The point is, Britain doesn't really need an empire. They are so expensive to maintain now that they are more of a weight on the occupying nation that Britain's empire began to decline shortly after the second world war.
And wtf has giving back colonies bloodlessly have to do with anything?
Most contries Britain gave their independance back to (bloodlessly, in most cases) still found that trade with Britian would be profitable, and so joined the commonwealth.
I'm not sure about canada, but Australia were actually offered independance. They refused.
End of the story.
Anything else said about Britian being pointlessly imperialistic is just bullshit.
We hardly even interfere with Canada or Australia, anyway.
________
SexxyMolly (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/SexxyMolly/)

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 07:47 AM
The point is, Britain doesn't really need an empire. They are so expensive to maintain now that they are more of a weight on the occupying nation that Britain's empire began to decline shortly after the second world war.
And wtf has giving back colonies bloodlessly have to do with anything?
Most contries Britain gave their independance back to (bloodlessly, in most cases) still found that trade with Britian would be profitable, and so joined the commonwealth.
I'm not sure about canada, but Australia were actually offered independance. They refused.
End of the story.
Anything else said about Britian being pointlessly imperialistic is just bullshit.
We hardly even interfere with Canada or Australia, anyway.
So like...omgz the ira duzzzn't existzorz.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 07:48 AM
Yeah. Whatever.
________
ROLL A JOINT (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

JohnnyNemesis
06-13-2005, 08:17 AM
The fact that the spelling/grammar argument went this far is pathetic. What wheelchairman said about British insecurity leading to this imperialistic attitude is %100 percent true on this BBS.

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 08:45 AM
It's not human nature because human nature doesn't exist.

Please don't say that you believe that bullshit.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 08:51 AM
Please don't say that you believe that bullshit.
Adamantly so.

The idea of human nature wasn't concieved until the birth of a certain line of monotheistic religions (Judaism, I'm looking in your direction) as one of the 'undeniable' evidences of 'God'.

There is no common denominator among the human race. Especially since most of our behaviour, attitudes, opinions, and gut reactions change from economic system to economic system (like from feudalism to capitalism.)

And I'm certain your next reply will be something like 'but omg everybody is greedy and selfish. so ha!'. To which I'd reply, the form of greed we see today is far different than that of the greed of feudalist society, in which it wasn't so much greed for the 'self' (the I) but greed for the family (often represented in outdated concepts of honor and honor of the family-name etc.)

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 08:56 AM
Why are you 'looking in my direction'? I'm no Jew.

There is a common denominator - we are merely evolved from apes so still retain some of their characteristics. Not only that, but there is many scientific studies which show how the human brain behaves in a specific way to certain things – such things as art; what we find attractive etc. All this is human nature. Animals.

And about the greed thing – we’ve adapted to the situation.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 09:04 AM
Why are you 'looking in my direction'? I'm no Jew.

There is a common denominator - we are merely evolved from apes so still retain some of their characteristics. Not only that, but there is many scientific studies which show how the human brain behaves in a specific way to certain things – such things as art; what we find attractive etc. All this is human nature. Animals.

And about the greed thing – we’ve adapted to the situation.
And by "looking at your direction, Judaism" I was talking to Judaism, not you, don't worry. Although the story is true of Christianity and Islam.

Characteristics of apes? That doesn't really mean nature. Unless you keep it to something as simple as 'all humans have feelings.' I'll agree to that. But it could never get more complicated since most people have some control over their feelings, different ways to handle them, different ways of letting them out, etc. etc.

But even our feelings have changed over the years. You study languages, so what I'm about to tell you should be absolutely fascinating. The ability to lie, most historians believe, developed under some point during the agricultural/village organization of society. Before then, it was unfathomable that people would think one thing, and speak another. The whole concept of deviousness or intent to misinform or whatever, didn't exist in the human line of social reaction until rather late in our development.

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 09:13 AM
But even our feelings have changed over the years. You study languages, so what I'm about to tell you should be absolutely fascinating. The ability to lie, most historians believe, developed under some point during the agricultural/village organization of society. Before then, it was unfathomable that people would think one thing, and speak another. The whole concept of deviousness or intent to misinform or whatever, didn't exist in the human line of social reaction until rather late in our development.

That's just evolution, - it doesn't disprove the basic existence of human nature unless one was talking about the human nature of lying; which I don't believe in.

Human nature is to save oneself - just like animals; sure, there are obviously a small amount of exceptions to this (in specific circumstances) but still that is what humans do, that is what animals do. Survival instinct or something, which proves human nature. And what about in art? We all find specific things attractive, in fact, for centuries we have prized the same things in our art (I just got home and am not going to find that particular study for you but google it, if you so wish).

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 09:19 AM
Human nature is to save oneself - just like animals; sure, there are obviously a small amount of exceptions to this (in specific circumstances) but still that is what humans do, that is what animals do. Survival instinct or something, which proves human nature. And what about in art? We all find specific things attractive, in fact, for centuries we have prized the same things in our art (I just got home and am not going to find that particular study for you but google it, if you so wish).
The fear of death, of course is a common. But we don't live in a jungle, we don't need to fear about the tiger around the corner. The only people who would be subject to anything close would be those living one pay-check away from the street for example. And that really isn't anybody you know, so don't even try telling me how they behave.

Aesthetics is incredibly different for everyone. The art everyone liked for centuries, was mainly because plebs weren't a part of it (obviously.) It was a small section of high society that was *the taste* of the times. Today it's far too different with tastes spread across genres, across genres across genres. Some people claim symmetry is true beauty, but perfectly symmetrical people are hideous and weird looking, so that's not quite true.

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 09:23 AM
No, you don't understand the about the art point. Read 'the history of art' by Nigel Spivey - I may explain better later but for now I'm off to play San Andreas.


And that really isn't anybody you know, so don't even try telling me how they behave.

I might do - don't judge a book by the cover.

Vera
06-13-2005, 09:26 AM
So, wait, you're saying we're not different from the other species, Per?

notoriousdoc
06-13-2005, 09:27 AM
go fuck yourself. FAVOR. it's better. So its being on vacation instead of on holiday. And a million other words you've used to screw up english. My american english is more pure than your british.

Keep typing. Maybe, someday, you'll randomly type something semi-intelligent. It's truly amazing the way you never let an idea interrupt the flow of your typing

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 09:28 AM
No, you don't understand the about the art point. Read 'the history of art' by Nigel Spivey - I may explain better later but for now I'm off to play San Andreas.



I might do - don't judge a book by the cover.
I've heard of it, just because it's in a book, doesn't mean it's true. It created a lot of commotion when it was first published and there are many who disagree with his basic premise.

You might know one or too. That's just knowing one or two people. I know dozens and am in those neighborhoods on a nearly daily basis. I *know* them. Besides you are middle class and proud, and don't believe in class-mobility.

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 09:30 AM
I've heard of it, just because it's in a book, doesn't mean it's true. It created a lot of commotion when it was first published and there are many who disagree with his basic premise.

Which is exactly what's happening here - I, having read the book, agree with him, but you do not.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 09:35 AM
So, wait, you're saying we're not different from the other species, Per?
Nope, I'm simply saying we evolved from monkeys and that's the most you can expect of us.

Jenny, then you really can't rely on the book as evidence of human nature.

dagger
06-13-2005, 09:54 AM
lol these boards are so racist.

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 11:22 AM
70 replies and you don't have an opinion. You just pop in with some bland insult that is supposed to be what? Witty? Maybe you've never left the UK, maybe you don't even know how American English differs from British English. But if you really have no opinion or even the knowledge necessary to have one, then stop trying to be cool with your little 'insults' that to me sound like poor imitations of Tripboy and several others.
Amazing. I used to either have no opinion, or a negative opinion of you. And in just a few short days it seems, I want to make love to you.

Dubyasux
06-13-2005, 11:31 AM
Arnold Schwarzenegger once said "Blacks can't gobern themselfs"
I think he is right,just look at all the African nations,just compare Southafrica when whites were in power and Southafrica when blacks are in power...

This is an Article by Susan Bryce and Brandon James.

Rape is an occurrence which, according to official statistics occurred approximately 16,000 times annually during the 1980s. By 1992 the official figure for rape was 24,700.4 unofficially, based on the premise put forward by the National Institute of Crime Rehabilitation that only one in twenty rapes are reported, the figure is about 494,000 a year.
This means that on average approximately one thousand three hundred women can be expected to be raped a day in South Africa.

Even a government minister calls South Africa the rape capital of the world.

A study by Interpol, the international police agency, has revealed that South Africa leads the world in rapes.

A woman was raped in South Africa every 17 seconds. This did not include the number of child rape victims. It was estimated that one in every two women would be raped.

Between 28 and 30 percent of adolescents reported that their first sexual encounter was forced.

Of South African men who knew somebody who had been raped, 16 percent believed that the rape survivor had enjoyed the experience and had asked for it. According to a recent study police estimated that only one in 36 rape cases was reported and of those only 15 percent culminated in a conviction.

felix_leiter
06-13-2005, 11:33 AM
The thing about British people being more imperialistic in attitude than anyone else is unbelieveably stupid.

The French don't have the same tendencies??? Isn't it evident from history and current events that every country and people probably has the same tendencies?

Yeah i think grammar and correct spelling is not needed (at least within the UK) so I'll gonna write phonetically and lazily from now on because:

We can geh alohngh foin wiv awt i. We can commooneecat pefecly weul. Um shur evreebodee wood luv toh reeyud dis ahwl da toim.

Dubyasux, stop taking the piss

Preecey
06-13-2005, 11:38 AM
The days of empires are over.
(To Dubyasux) just because there are more rapes in South Africa this doesn't mean blacks are inferior. Just because, in your opinion, Europe and America have better leaders than Africa, doesn't mean are right.

JohnnyNemesis
06-13-2005, 11:50 AM
For the record, my comments on Brits being imperialistic in attitude is limited to this BBS and this BBS alone.

The article that Dubyasux posted and the opinions he shared are inrcedibly skewed and cater only to the weak-minded and narrow-minded. Usually I feel that people who say "I won't even dignify that with a response!" are full of shit, but fucking hell, I'm gonna say it this time and actually MEAN it. How sad is that?

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 11:57 AM
Dubyasux- First of all, you didn't link that article, so if I didn't know that you weren't a complete numbskull I'd accuse you of having written that article yourself and making up the numbers. However, now I'll just accuse you of being completely inable of finding a biased news source.

Second, the South African problem is not because of Africans. But, if you think about it, in large part because they are actually policing the African areas in a fair way (meaning, rapes are recorded unlike before.) And many other possible variables like that.

Felix_Leiter- The French don't have the same tendencies. There is a noticeable difference in the French attitude towards foreign affairs than the British attitude. This is obviously because the French have learned serious lessons from Tunisia and Vietnam. The Brits, tend to ignore their social problems and the media in England likes to exploit the media potential in the problem areas. I'm not saying, Brits as a people are more imperialistic. I'm saying that among Brits, there is a higher tendency towards imperialism, I mean jesus, that is the foundation of your Tory party, why do you even bother denying this?

And you did a good job of proving my point on the collective British inferiority complex when it comes to their English.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 11:59 AM
Dubyasux- First of all, you didn't link that article, so if I didn't know that you weren't a complete numbskull I'd accuse you of having written that article yourself and making up the numbers. However, now I'll just accuse you of being completely inable of finding a biased news source.

Second, the South African problem is not because of Africans. But, if you think about it, in large part because they are actually policing the African areas in a fair way (meaning, rapes are recorded unlike before.) And many other possible variables like that.

Felix_Leiter- The French don't have the same tendencies. There is a noticeable difference in the French attitude towards foreign affairs than the British attitude. This is obviously because the French have learned serious lessons from Tunisia and Vietnam. The Brits, tend to ignore their social problems and the media in England likes to exploit the media potential in the problem areas. I'm not saying, Brits as a people are more imperialistic. I'm saying that among Brits, there is a higher tendency towards imperialism, I mean jesus, that is the foundation of your Tory party, why do you even bother denying this?

And you did a good job of proving my point on the collective British inferiority complex when it comes to their English.
The Tory party aren't even in power. And they are dicks anyway. And I hate imperialism (although you did say as a people, not individuals).

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 12:00 PM
The Tory party aren't even in power. And they are dicks anyway. And I hate imperialism (although you did say as a people, not individuals).
They are your second largest party (and one of your oldest still remaining). The Democratic Party of America isn't in power, but they still have strong support in the population, same thing.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 12:04 PM
They are your second largest party (and one of your oldest still remaining). The Democratic Party of America isn't in power, but they still have strong support in the population, same thing.
A travesty. I would prefer the Liberal Democrats to have the same position. The last time the conservatives were in power they closed down steelworks and mines, not least in the area I live in. Thatcher should be hung.

felix_leiter
06-13-2005, 12:48 PM
The French are the same as any country in their imperialistic aims of expanding their sphere of influence. We've been talking about a particular subject where this is true for the past week.

Tory party the imperialistic party? Please explain this notion, and Preecey, which and what aspects of Thatcher's policies necessitates her hanging?

Preecey
06-13-2005, 12:52 PM
Well, their party name is formerly known as 'conservative', or wanting to conserve the way Britain has been, eg, an empire.

Margaret Thatcher had no regard for the common person and displayed this when she caused the minors strikes and shut down the steel industry, one of the main providers of jobs in this region. Also, she wanted to privatize the national health service, meaning that people would have to pay. Therefore poor people would not have free healthcare available.

The only reason she got elected was because of her tough stance during the Falklands war, which was about protecting the empire (agreed, however, that the islanders wanted to be liberated). I just hate her for it all. Britain has been in decline ever since.

felix_leiter
06-13-2005, 01:03 PM
That seems like hideously simplistic and inaccurate reasoning, I think.

I think there's probably good ideas behind those policies, which benifited most people, be they "common people" or rich fat cats, if perhaps their execution wasnt great. After all, she was one of the common people herself.

That last point makes no sense, seen as she came to power three years before. Do you have any knowledge of the country before Thatcher? There are stronger reasons why she came to power, and on understanding them, it becomes obvious that the country is not in any greater decline because of her than the previous governments.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 01:05 PM
Well it was her who cut down the navy, destroyed the working class and it's unions. But anything you have to say in her favour I'll listen too.

felix_leiter
06-13-2005, 01:17 PM
Destroyed the working class? Isnt that everyone's aim to create a classless society?

Off the top of my head, giving people the right to buy their council homes. Before Thatcher, if you had lived your entire life in a particular council home, then your parents or whoever the flat was assigned to died-you'd be turfed out, and new people would move in.

Imagine what good that did for building a community and sense of belonging in those already caught in a cycle of deprivation in those vast sink etstates we see all over the country.

Thatcher gave people the chance to buy their homes. This way it was hoped that better off people would remain in the estates, and help alleviate the directionless quality council esates held.

Preecey
06-13-2005, 01:27 PM
Destroyed the working class? Isnt that everyone's aim to create a classless society?

Off the top of my head, giving people the right to buy their council homes. Before Thatcher, if you had lived your entire life in a particular council home, then your parents or whoever the flat was assigned to died-you'd be turfed out, and new people would move in.

Imagine what good that did for building a community and sense of belonging in those already caught in a cycle of deprivation in those vast sink etstates we see all over the country.

Thatcher gave people the chance to buy their homes. This way it was hoped that better off people would remain in the estates, and help alleviate the directionless quality council esates held.
Well, maybe she wasn't entiely bad, I'll grant you, but starving the working class? Using police brutality on the working class? Pummeling the working class was destroying it. This is a poor tactic because it undermines the system. A poor working class means a poor power base, one that supports the working class.

Noodles is gay
06-13-2005, 02:42 PM
Goddamn, this thread has degenerated into another 'hate the Tories' thread - there is already 5 or 6 of these!

The Tories are by far the best party in England and Thatcher was a great leader.

*They believe in grammar schools; something which our lovely Labour party have abolished which led to poorer education from the ‘lower-classes’
*They’d put more money into our filing NHS (which really is a joke to be honest)
*They won't join the Euro - damn those Europeans; keep Britain British!
*They'll abolish university entrance fees
*They'll reduce some of the tax crippling the middle classes.
*More money into the police force and less paperwork so that the police are actually fighting crime rather than filing paper.
*They'll put more money into our under-funded military so again Britain will actually have the best; like old times.
*They'll abolish the ridiculous policies that Labour have introduced which have served only to turn Britain into the biggest joke in the world.


I would explain more but my hand's bleeding. :p

wheelchairman
06-13-2005, 04:06 PM
Goddamn, this thread has degenerated into another 'hate the Tories' thread - there is already 5 or 6 of these!Like one or two. I'd say the Republicans got it harder than you do.


The Tories are by far the best party in England and Thatcher was a great leader.
I'd say the Tories are as bad, if not worse than Labour. I don't know enough about the Liberal Democrats to have an opinion. They seem rather ambiguous.



*They won't join the Euro - damn those Europeans; keep Britain British!

Because of British imperialism, Britain is a very multi-ethnic society. Keeping Britain British, would involve more ethnic cleansing than saying 'no' to the EU.


*They'll reduce some of the tax crippling the middle classes.

The British middle classes are crippled? News to me...


*More money into the police force and less paperwork so that the police are actually fighting crime rather than filing paper.
Because like....crime is out of control? And the only way to lower crime is by more police officers. Much much more. I thought you hated the nanny-state?
And how does shoving money into the police force mean less paper work? Have you ever considered that the paper work might actually put a limit to police corruption and other such things?


*They'll put more money into our under-funded military so again Britain will actually have the best; like old times.

Britain has no use for a strong military. And it will never be better than the US' so it won't be 'like old times.' Although cutting money from the military would be a great way to fund other social services. Since y'all have a rather large military for your size. But then again, the tory party was ever the imperialist party.
[/QUOTE]

RXP
06-13-2005, 11:15 PM
*They'll reduce some of the tax crippling the middle classes.


Cry me a river.

I don't know if your actually stupid or just baiting.

Sin Studly
06-13-2005, 11:37 PM
Yeah, the middle classes are pretty crippled. Not not as much as the upper classes, they're the real victims here. The homeless and those living under the poverty line have it too easy.

Vera
06-14-2005, 04:19 AM
If you want it like the old days, you can go invade a few African countries and take over India again. And maybe do the slavery thing again, that was fun!

Luke_revolt
06-14-2005, 06:16 AM
Yeah because the upper and middle classes have it reaaally hard don't they! with the deciding wether to get 2 or 3 BMW's etc. and i agree with wheelchairman, what on earth does Britain need a stronger military for? Incase we get invaded by....(think's up countries hostile/unfriendly towards the UK at the moment) SYRIA, or IRAN!!!!!

gortesque
06-14-2005, 07:37 AM
after reading this entire thread (i'm fucking bored), i came to one conclution:

YOU GOT OWNED.

oh, and hey, you're an asshole.

Preecey
06-14-2005, 07:45 AM
Margaret Thatcher obliterated the economy, and we don't need an extensive army. Just one that does the job and is reletively efficient and well-trained.

defyuk
06-14-2005, 08:24 AM
Lets talk what we don't usually talk.

Youre a racist idiot! It doesn't matter what race you are the only thing that makes you inferior is if your too dam lazy to make something of your life. o and if you're a crazy terrorist!

The tories suck. britain was a craphole thanks to their leadership in the eighties. i don't agree with everything Labour have done but things are a lot better for us than we nthe dam tories were in charge.