Thread: Racism. Can it be justified? I think so.

it’s being white. Otherwise explain this:



Letting slip the forbidden N word in the distant past and apologizing or glorifying killing people for being white just recently — which is more racist?

^Ahh yes Booners ,clouding the issue with facts again I see ,this must stop forthwith Ya Hear! , why not post a little total BS once in a while I'm sure this will go down well with certain members

Originally Posted by Rainfall

The theory floated by Rickthai was that Buddhism makes you a good person. Buddhist follow simple precepts

1) Don't steal (or take anything not given).
2) Don't lie (say things only if you believe they are true and beneficial)
3) Don't become intoxicated (through alcohol or drugs)
4) Don't engage in wrongful sex (underage, married to someone else, or illegal)
5) Don't kill (this is the hardest thing to comply with due to mosquitoes and flies).

Or do they? Except for 4) perhaps Thais violate these precepts far more often and habitually than the average Westerner, atheist or Christian. The evidence proves that buddhism makes you a bad person, doesn't it?

I never said Buddhism makes you a good person, I said that following the 5 precepts of Buddhism has made me a better person (although I believe it would probably make the majority of the worlds atheists/agnostics/Muslims/Jews/Christians better people).

When you consider the poverty level of most Thais, the crime rate of Thailand is not that bad. I believe it would be much worse if the majority of Thais were not Buddhists. Buddhism is probably why so many Thai people are tolerant of "sex-pats".



Identifying as a "Buddhist" and following the precepts of the Buddha's dhamma are two different things (just as there are "Christians" who routinely break any and all of the 10 Commandments).

Judging Buddhism by the imperfection of many of its followers is just like condemning mathematics because many people make arithmetic errors. Absolutely ridiculous IMO.

Santi,

RickThai

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

it’s being white. Otherwise explain this:



Letting slip the forbidden N word in the distant past and apologizing or glorifying killing people for being white just recently — which is more racist?

That just show's how extreme the USA has gotten in trying to pacify "the black horde".

It started with multi-million dollar law-suit awards against corporations because a VP may have made a critical comment about Kawanza as a valid holiday in a board meeting; and has reached such a ridiculous point, that a woman is immediately fired because of the word "nigger" in a private conversation with her husband, after being held up at gun point by a Negro bank robber. Something that happened decades ago.

If every person in the USA (of all races) were fired because they used the word "nigger" at least once sometimes during their life, I doubt that anyone would have a job!

During my military service, I worked closely with hundreds of Negro soldiers and I routinely heard just about all of them refer to Negroes as "niggers" on a daily basis.

What Deen should have said was that after having someone stick a gun to her head in a robbery, she had every right to call the guy whatever name she wanted.

I hope she sues the food network for wrongful termination and wins.

RickThai

You do have a talent for analogies, even though they're not good. Maths is a science, build up piece for piece by the most gifted minds of 100 generations. Buddhism are the illegal-substance induced revelations of a single man with a history of failures in spiritual issues, which stricly speaking aren't issues. Different league. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Buddhism are the illegal-substance induced revelations of a single man with a history of failures in spiritual issues, which stricly speaking aren't issues.

Where in the world did you read that about the Buddha? Did you just make all that up?

Considering that "single man" inspired a system of teaching and belief that has impacted the lives of countless hundreds of millions of people over the last 2500 years, I would think even the most cynical person would think he had to have something going for him.

How many people will remember you 10 years after you are dead, much less 2500 years?

Good grief.

RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

During my military service, I worked closely with hundreds of Negro soldiers

Negro soldiers? Was this during the Civil War?

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Buddhism are the illegal-substance induced revelations of a single man with a history of failures in spiritual issues, which stricly speaking aren't issues.

Where in the world did you read that about the Buddha? Did you just make all that up

Yes, he did.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Buddhism are the illegal-substance induced revelations of a single man with a history of failures in spiritual issues, which stricly speaking aren't issues.

Where in the world did you read that about the Buddha? Did you just make all that up?

Considering that "single man" inspired a system of teaching and belief that has impacted the lives of countless hundreds of millions of people over the last 2500 years, I would think even the most cynical person would think he had to have something going for him.

How many people will remember you 10 years after you are dead, much less 2500 years?

Good grief.

RickThai

What concern is this of mine when I'm dead, unconscious for all eternity?

If you think the virgin birth was special, what about the story of Buddha's mum, Maya? "A white elephant with six tusks descended from heaven, carried a lotus flower in his trunk, and entered her womb" That's something, huh?

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Buddhism are the illegal-substance induced revelations of a single man with a history of failures in spiritual issues, which stricly speaking aren't issues. Different league. Sorry.

What drove you to say that?

Drug (illegal substances?) induced revelations? From Gautama?

Nonesense.

If you'd referred to the Vedas, I would agree, in part.

When Integration Fails

Students At Integrated South African University Vote To Re-Segregate.

Looks like a good move considering...

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by RickThai

During my military service, I worked closely with hundreds of Negro soldiers

Negro soldiers? Was this during the Civil War?

When speaking of the Nergo race, I prefer the word Negro, which is a proper, non-slang, non-slur word to describe someone of that race.

African-American is a misnomer when referring to race, since the continent of Africa has several different races that have lived there for thousands of years.

Black is a color, not a race.

Just my personal preference of course.

RickThai

Justifiable racism.

Interesting concept.

Valid? ........Yes.

An ethnicity (sometimes called a "race") is identified as a unique social group, by traits derived from a developing ancestral lineage.

Whether that group is white black, pink or purple depends on how much sun they got in the past.

So called "blacks" are no more black than I am white, and the term negro or niger are Latin derived words meaning black.

No offence intended.

It was only through social pressure that the term "nigger" became a derogatory term, mainly in the USA, but then universally.

So, people have been "racist" since the dawn of time, defining and identifying significant other social groups according to their cultural practices, physiognomy and colour, as they went about their trade and exchange practices in an ever diminishing world.

In the last forty years or so, starting with feminism, any kind of labeling of cultural, sexual or ethnic groups and sub-groups that does not conform to a particular group's self-image, is rejected as racist, sexist, supremacist and so on.

Terms that were once lingua franca are now regarded as discriminatory, so we now have non-descript terms applied to groups of people which effectively "hide" them from view.l, they have become a hazzy, foggy, sort of grey, as in the term "Asian" in the British press, when refering to (mainly) Pakistani Muslim.

This form of referencing obfuscates the reality, casting those who are not of Pakstani Muslim.ancestry in the same light as the aforementioned.

So, as has occurred in UK recently, the real main players (Islamic Pakistani instigators) in the drama unfolding after the Woolwich murder have all been descrbed and disguised as Asian.

Two negros of Islamic persuasion, motivated by a militant philosophy of jihad uttered by a leading (brownish, Pakistani) London cultural supremacist, murdered a white Brit soldier as a publicity stunt.

Thank crikey that some in this world can call a spade a spade, and know sh*t from clay.

Frogs, sheep shag*ers, grass maggot gropers, septics, boongs, gooks, slopes, spics, kikes, polacs, kohlkopfs (krauts), boggers, queers, poofs, faggots, straights, heads, bints, slags, dikes, general weirdos and the rest of ya, tough titties, derogatory epithets are here to stay.

And, no, I'm not a racist, ya honky redneck wowser.









I just like laughing at ya.

^
What you say, sadly is too true in today's world. Facts and honesty have given way to PC-speak, even when all objective evidence points in a different direction.

RickThai

And who is he?

A racist in the UK.

At first glance he seems to be more anti-Islam and anti-Muslim than he is a racist. The racist part he only talks about mainly indirectly. He mentions how he wants to keep his country/heritage/culture/people intact and unsullied, which means good old Anglo Saxon, and that would be racism.

I'm not an Englishman, so I have a limited perspective on the issues, but it sounds to me that if he wants "real Englishmen" to admit they are racist and be public about it, then I can only assume he wants a war now rather than later.

Originally Posted by ENT

Whether that group is white black, pink or purple depends on how much sun they got in the past.

What race you are , depends on how much Neanderthal blood you have .

sure if you don't want to, you don't have to sub divide humans , but there's enough difference in the DNA to justify doing so if you wish .

Originally Posted by MrG

At first glance he seems to be more anti-Islam and anti-Muslim than he is a racist. The racist part he only talks about mainly indirectly. He mentions how he wants to keep his country/heritage/culture/people intact and unsullied, which means good old Anglo Saxon, and that would be racism.

I'm not an Englishman, so I have a limited perspective on the issues, but it sounds to me that if he wants "real Englishmen" to admit they are racist and be public about it, then I can only assume he wants a war now rather than later.

According to that then ,this Thai Government must be the biggest racists on the Planet , I just wonder what people would say if foreigners wishing to live in the UK was subject to the same jump through hoops rules as us "aliens" (that us Ex pats) have to do to live here? , me? its there Country after all ,and there is no walls to keep me here is there?, I either abide by the rules or just leave its that simple

I am Aware it must be a bit hard for the Average "African American" and the politically correct left wing whites to swallow but the simple fact is that Black Africans sold millions of their own kind into slavery of that there is no doubt whatsoever West Africans to African-Americans: "We Apologize for Slavery" - Probe Ministries there are many other links about this happening so this link is by no means a "one off"

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by Necron99

And who is he?

Just a visionary who speaks the unpalatable truth and tells it EXACTLY as its going to be in 30 years time in the UK

Shouldn't he express gratitude to his God that the UK has to cope with Muslims only, not Negroes and Mexicans who don't even try to learn English?