Darkion

I gvie up. not going to spoil these boards arguing , Toodloo all!

__________________
Order Of Haven

Commander-General
www.ashesofsouls.co.uk/haven/
"Im not high! You lie!"

Klion D'Gar

Where have I ever stated I cal black peoples nigger? I have merley stated that it's possible if there was the right provocation. I could also murder someone with sufficient provocation I think - I dont know.

I am arguing with someone who is arguing with me, the fact your 15 is irrelevant. In fact being exposed to some differing views is probably beneficial.

You can call me a nobhead, the context of such a remark would not be in doubt and you obviously mean something. Does it make you a nobist? I don't think so.

Sally Buttons

You might not have said it (yet) but you posted earlier that it was perfectly "natural" to call someone a nigger/paki/fatty/queer/four eyes etc if you were arguing with them. It's a bit late to be now trying to be seen as a reasonable guy (spot the reference).
The fact that you condone using hateful and insulting language to another person, just shows your intolerance. Also that you see anyone who disagrees with your point of view as some kind of loony leftie.
If you can't have an argument with someone without resorting to hurtful and cheap insults, then I don't really think you can say that people who object to that are out of order.
I worry for the future, when I read posts from people as young as you with such extreme views.

__________________

Sally Buttons

I'm going to lock this for the night, and open it again when I get home from work tomorrow.

__________________

Aisha

Snod

Calm down people, no need to get your buttocks in a twist - And 101 other foreign misinterpretations

Klion D'Gar

True. Which is similar to what I am saying; it's about context and motive not words.

Someone else suggested that this could have simply been his attempt at humour, though obviously it was a huge fubar on his part. Had the delivery been different the black fellar might have laughed - who knows?

I am not denying what he said was grossly offensive, the point I am making is that its not neccessarily racism.

Sally Buttons

I fail to see anything humorous about lynching, which is what his first remarks alluded to.

__________________

Klion D'Gar

Not every joke is tasteful, and not every joke is a good one. I am not defending what he said by any means, what I am saying is that -

a) Attacking someone with extreme remarks regarding their appearance, race, creed, sexuality and so forth during an argument is not that strange. People do it every day.

b) Just because he said these things, doesn't make him a racist. You can say things without meaning them and in an argument he is even more likely to say things he regrets,

I have remained consistant on these two points throughout the 'debate'. Your suggestion that I am suddenly trying to appear reasonable is laughable at best, since I dont feel I have said anything that might imply otherwise. I stand by every comment I have made in this thread.

It was YOU who implied I voted BNP in pretty much your first response to me. If anything Sally, it's you who's been unreasonable. Though in fairness the BNP are in my opinion ostracised too much - they are a political part and should be given as much freedom as the communist parties are. This IS a democracy afterall, and as long as they dont insight violence who cares?

For the record, I voted Tory

Kendrick

*sighs*

Klion. no. You cant just shout "I'm right. I've won." This is particularly unsophisticated sophistry.

I'll go step by step. Try to keep up.

You are saying:

1. I can never fully know anothers mind to 100% certainty.
2. There are class of properties (including being racist) that I can never ascribe to a person unless I truly know their motives to a 100% certainty.
3. Therefore you are can never ascribe a person has having that property because you cannot never know their motives.
4. Thefore noone can ever be labelled a racist.

Reductio Ad Absurdam.

So Klion, the question is when (if ever) you would concede that someone is racist? Never? By the bizarre standards of epistemology you appear to suscribe to it would seem *no* evidence would be good enough. In your opinions, peoples motives (which are always hidden to you) are the only deciding factor, so you could never label someone a racist, whatever their words or actions.

Or... am I doing you a disservice? Perhaps, you concede that there is a point when you say "yeah, that *was* racist". If you do, you're in the same boat as me: Having to listen to persons choice of language and way the philosophies they espouse, then deciding if that sounds racist or not (but always leaving the door open that you might be wrong).

The idea that I come to manichean conclusions in perpituity, solely on the use of word "nigger" in a heated exchange, is a straw man argument. My beliefs are such that if I heard it used by a white person to black person in heated argument, this would cause me to *strongly* consider the possibility that they are racist.

I'm trying to gauge, Klion, how many times you'd have to hear them say nigger, or what other actions would cause you to think a person was racist. It's clear we different notions about how high the bar is when it comes to thinking someone racist. The thought occurs to me that that you've set the bar just-so, to avoid having to face the uncomfortable home truth that you might be racist yourself.

p.s.
Duh. Yes, that was my point. The difference is in degree only. Even for extremes of postive certainty we have to leave the door open for doubt.

__________________

Klion D'Gar

No, I have not said no one can be called a racist. What I have said - and I challenge you to quote me otherwise - is that it's possible to say these things without being a racist.

In the context of this example, I am saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove this person is a racist. You'd probably need to know the individual a bit better or at least have exposure to further evidence before concluding he's a racist.

In science you don't accept the first answer, you test your theory by repeating it. Again - in the context of this example - you'd ideally need to see further videos of him slagging off blacks.

I will recheck my posts and attempt to clarify anything I have said if you can show me the specific points where I seem to say what your implying with the above.

Meiko

I'm just wondering "Player of Kendrick" how much thought you've actually put into this argument and how much history you know. As you would realise during your previous statements that many african blacks put their own people into slavery even before the whites began to populate africa and the caribeans.

Do you remember what happened during Hurricane Katrina? When all those mixed race, white and black americans were holed up in the sports arena? Which race was it that rapped and pillaged other people for food? It sure as hell wasn't the whites.

I'm sorry but your making out it was the whites that caused all this is wrong. I have family who are from South Africa and they have seen how blacks treat their own out there.

There are far more gun crimes related to minority races than there are amongst whites. So just think on that when you start your whinning of how blacks have been so badly treated in the past. With your dictionary terms of what words mean.


Oh and Klion, nice one, keep it up. I've been too busy to read this and got a bit behind with half the comments.

__________________

Made by my friend IrGXaNa.
Travian online Game

Mathias Janus

So basically Klion. You are saying that you have a few black friends and that you would call a black guy a nigger in an argument. Wouldn't this upset your black mates? I have a few black mates and I would never call someone a nigger in an argument as I wouldnt want anyone to call it to my mates.

__________________

Kendrick

No this is fine Klion. I just wanted to nudge you from your "you can never know a person's motives" position to one where you are forced to judge people by their words and actions. I needed to close this door to the philisophical refuge of epistimological solipsism.

Now we're just haggling about the standards of evidence required. I understand completely that the scientific method encourages multiple hypotheses
and multiple trials, but I'd be uncomfortable with the idea that deciding whether someone is a racist could be determined scientifically.
The principle of falsifiability would be difficult uphold for the example we're talking about, and the idea of numerous independent trials with the same base conditions even more troublesome to arrange. (Michael Richards is unlikely to repeat his outburst after the furore this one caused).

Of course I'd be much more more certain of his racism if I saw more "video's of him slagging off blacks", but some significant weight can be attached to the fact that I've seen at least one video of him being hateful about coloured people (lynching was mentioned for pity's sake, and he shouted "He's a nigger" more times than I care to remember.)

Based on this on video, do I have some doubt in my mind about his purported racism? Of course: some doubt remains. I can never be certain. As I've said, I'm not omniscient. Where we differ though is that I've attached *some* significance to the one video I've seen, whilst you appear to have attached none.

If you will simply concede that you would attach *some* signifance to the vile outbursts in the video clip, rather than rule them completely out of hand, then I feel that some of thevitriol flying your way might lessen.

__________________

Kendrick

Meiko.

Reprehensible. Indefensible.

Flabbergasted by your ignorance here.

__________________