Racism in Porn

[ChefChiTown]

I was watching Judge Mathis the other day (yeah, I know) and there was a case that I found to be interesting and I thought I would bring it up in this thread, as it pertains to what we are talking about.

The plantiff, who was a racist white woman, was suing the defendant because she had tried to push her in front of a moving train. The defendant, a white woman, was dating a black man. The plantiff, defendant and her boyfriend had all been at a train stop at the time of this event. To save all the meaningless details, the plantiff had called the defendants boyfriend a ******, right to his face. The defendant started to fight with the plantiff and that is how they ended up in court.

Anyway, during the court session, the defendant handed Judge Mathis a copy of the police report that was filed that day. The plantiff had stated on the police report that the defendant "didn't like her because her boyfriend is black".

Judge Mathis acknowledged this by asking the plantiff what the boyfriend's skin color had anything to do with the defendant not liking her. He then said, and I quote, "Just because she (the defendant) and her boyfriend are an in INTERRACIAL relationship, it doesn't give you the right to say those things (referring to her racist slurs)".

Judge Mathis, a black man, used the term interracial. He didn't use it in a negative way and he didn't use it with any racist connotation. No one in the court room, including the white defendant and her black boyfriend, was upset by the use of the word.

I'm bringing this up because I think it perfectly illustrates that everyone views the word differently. Some people, like Judge Mathis, view it as a descriptive word. Some people view it as a racist label. Who is right? Who is wrong? Neither. To each their own.

The fact that you can’t understand how the term “interracial” could be racist in and of itself says otherwise.

I can see how someone could look at the word interracial to be a racist label, I just don't believe that it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interracial

Personally, I think that certain words/phrases/labels get so scrutinized that people start to over analyze their meaning and end up getting offended over nothing. There are a lot of people who want to be mad about something, so they look for something to get mad about. It's just like when certain women get pissy because you say "mailMAN" or "repairMAN" instead of "mailPERSON" or "repairPERSON". It's honestly getting ridiculous.

My job, as a human being, isn't to cater to everyone's individual feelings. That is a fucking impossible task to accomplish. I would have to spend the rest of my life walking around on eggshells just so I wouldn't offend somebody. Fuck that.

No matter what phrase or term is used to describe an interracial couple (or porn scene, as this thread pertains to), there is always going to be people that aren't happy with it.

I just really don't understand why we (as a society) are expected to use/avoid certain words just to cater to everyone elses feelings. Are we that *****ish of a society now, where we all get offended over everything? Pretty soon, I'm not going to be able to say **** to anybody without them calling me a racist, sexist or homophobe.

 

[Morlock.]

I don't have the time to read all your posts and refute the nonsense therein, so I'll just grab this one and make an example of it.

Because as I'm always saying, race is nonexistent.

Nonsense. Race exists. Just Google "race does not exist" and fallacy for some reading. Or try these links:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
(scroll down to the part titled "RACE DOES NOT EXIST")

Or try this piece by Nicholas Wade in the NYT:

Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E3DE1E3DF933A15751C1A9649C8B63

I have LOADS more links if anyone wants some good reading and will appreciate my effort, rather than read me Psalms from the book of PC.

We all come from one small race of dark skinned Africans.

This is supposed to refute the existence of race? How? We are all descended from one small group of hominids (AKA "the missing link"); does that obviate the existence of families? Then how can it obviate the existence of race? We're all descended from some unknown, probably long-extinct single-celled organism too - does that mean species does not exist?

Those of us who have lighter skin have that because our more recent ancestors inhabited colder parts of the planet.

Skin color and race are two very distinct categories. See here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html

and here:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

Today there are all kinds of relationships between people with different genes and skin colours. So there really isn't any "white" and "black" anymore.

Is this supposed to be a chain of logic? There are people whose parents were of different races, ergo race does not exist anymore? That's like saying Great Danes and Boston Terriers no longer exist if some Great Danes are bred with some Boston Terriers, even though there are scads of Great Danes and Boston Terriers still around (far more than there are Great Dane/Boston Terrier mixes). That's preposterous.

And even though, based on appearance, you can describe someone as white or black, or really doesn't mean anything.

Nonsense. Check this out:

Race Linked to Genetic Markers
http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/genetics,race,and ancestry/8.html

In the latest study to wade into the question of whether race is a biologically based category or a socially constructed label, scientists at Stanford University claim to have found that 326 genetic 'markers' -- segments of DNA -- can be used to cluster people into four groups, with each group corresponding to common racial categories: white, African-American, East Asian and Hispanic.

For more than a decade some geneticists and anthropologists have argued that race isn't biologically real and therefore shouldn't be used in medical research and clinical practice. The argument is based on the fact that, for
thousands of years, humans have been marrying and having *****ren with people of different ancestry, with the result that everyone's genes come from the same big, humanwide pool.

The mapping of the human genome and growing interest in race-based pharmaceuticals have stirred the debate in recent years.

The study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, involved 3,636 people enrolled in a large trial on the genetics of hypertension. To see whether genetic markers correspond to the standard racial categories, the scientists first analyzed the volunteers' DNA, identifying which genetic markers they carried. They then used a computer program to cluster people based on genetic similarities; those who shared genetic markers were grouped together. Finally, the scientists compared those groupings with the volunteers' self-identified race. The result: people who considered themselves white had been grouped by the computer, based on their genetic markers, in one cluster, while people who consider themselves African-American had been grouped in a second, different cluster. The same held for Hispanics and East Asians. Only five people had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the racial or ethnic box they checked at the outset of the
study.

"People have argued that race and ethnicity are purely social categories," says Neil Risch, the study's lead author, who is director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, San Francisco. "We've shown that socially defined ethnic categories correspond with genetic categories." The findings are convincing because of the large number of genetic markers -- 326 -- used to cluster the participants, he says.

To racist whites (some of them don't know they're racist), if you have 10% "black ancestry" then you're black.

The one drop rule is as much a black phenomenon as a white one. That's why people like Colin Powell and Halle Berry self-identify as black. Are they racist blacks? Are they racist blacks who "don't know they're racist?"

Btw, I'm curious - can blacks be racist? Can they be racist in more than theory? In other words, are there many racist blacks in America?

"Interracial" is both incorrect and offensive... because (a) it implies that you are either one or the other, and that the two don't mix, and if they do, it needs it's own special, unusual, and ***** term.

"Special," "unusual," and "*****" are your characterizations. I attach none of them to "interracial" or mixed race. Sounds like you just don't like the concept or existence of race and want to wish it away for selfish, personal reasons (whatever they may be).

(b) it is very offensive to people who have parents of different skin colours, because it implies that there are two separate races that have mixed together to make them, and that they are somehow unique or abnormal BECAUSE of this, when in fact their genetic make up is as normal and everyday and typical as everyone else's.

Mixed-race people ARE unusual. Just look at the population statistics. They ARE NOT normal (I don't mean that in a bad way - I'm not equating normal with good; just look at my beliefs about race - nothing normal about them at all).

And (c) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE, black and white are colours, can be used to describe skin, but while "skin colour" exists, "black race" and "white race" do not, because as I keep saying - we come from ONE SMALL GROUP of people, and our skin colour is determined not by "which race" we hail from, cause there IS ONLY ONE RACE, the human race... but by which climate our more recent ancestors happened to live in for a long period of time.

You can keep saying it until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it so. Race exists. There is a white race, and a black race. Skin color is not race (it is simply the most obvious marker that attaches to race).

Please, do us all a favor and read a bit about the subject on which you chronically pontificate, because you're sadly uninformed on the topic and you're filling naive people's heads with total nonsense.

 

[Morlock.]

And even though, based on appearance, you can describe someone as white or black, or really doesn't mean anything.

And as Roughneck so aptly pointed out, the medical profession is a wonderful example of a field where race most certainly does matter. Medical professionals don't have the luxury of squeezing their eyes shut and intoning prayers from the Holy Book of PC - they're too busy trying to save lives to deny reality.

 

[Morlock.]

Scientists have proven that all of the so-called "racial differences" actually are completely due to environment and adaptation over time depending on where in the world ancestors lived.

No, racial differences are due to genetic differences, not environmental differences. Yes, those genetic differences were formed as adaptations to different environments, but I don't see how this leads to anywhere but "race exists."

So there aren't any set races, but actually a bunch of intermixed intertwined different adapted features, all over the world, that are a hodge podge of everything all of us as one race have been through since we became human beings in Africa, when we first learned to speak and walk upright and all that jazz.

"Set races" is the kind of straw man argument that race obscurantists have to resort to because they don't have anything substantive. They always use language like this ("discrete races" and "distinct races" are the usual terms in my experience).

But, as I said, it's a straw man; obscurantists pretend that anyone actually refers to or proffers the idea of "discrete races," when they don't. Race-realists know perfectly well that race is a fuzzy category (just like pretty much ANY category). Color is a fuzzy category too; where does orange end and red begin? Where does purple end and blue begin? None of this fuzziness stops people from referring to orange, red, purple, or blue, but somehow it's supposed to stop us from referring to races?

The "breads" of dogs as you say are completely different, because there are no "breeds of humans".

Sure there are. They're commonly referred to as races, population groups (in genetics), etc.

In fact scientists have shown, again, that unlike any other mammal, a remarkable fact about humans is that we are remarkably similar - all of us - and there are no breeds and what not.

That's a matter of opinion. Actually, the newer stuff coming out of genetics is ******* scientists to backtrack a bit from their similarity claims.

Besides, the similarity claims were always based on an ignorant audience, one which didn't understand even the basics of genetics; sure, two populations may be 99% similar in their genetic structure, but that 1% can make a hell of a difference in real world terms. We share what, more than half of our genes with the amoeba?

I could drone on about the backtracking I referred to above, or the (relatively) new discovery that junk DNA isn't so "junk" after all, or about gene expression, but it's probably best to simply provide some context to the genetic similarity argument and let common sense take over:

Chimps are human, gene study implies
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744.html

Mice, men share 99 percent of genes
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/

I took a couple of classes on this and we looked up all of the research and read the studies by the top universities and what not, and I am completely convinced. The evidence is overwhelming. The scientists that have researched this have come to a consensus. I trust them.

You shouldn't be so trusting. Geneticists routinely emit squid ink to keep the race-crusaders at bay and the research dollars flowing:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm

That's one example of many. Population geneticists couch their findings in terms like "population group" and the like (to keep people like Fox off their backs), but what they're talking about is race.

See, you all on this board don't know about this stuff, yet it's scientific fact.

Ehehehe. I've spent the last six years or so reading thousands of articles and arguments on this stuff. So far you've taught me nothing.

The reason nobody knows these things is that they are not really taught until the college level, advanced sociology and some more updated biology courses.

Word to the wise: sociology is the LAST place you'll find anything remotely approaching truth about race. It's a bastion of politically motivated pseudo-scientists (vis-a-vis race anyway).

The dictionary is not set. It just isn't. The dictionary is defined *by the usage* of the word. That is how the Oxford Dictionary all started back in ye olden times. That's why there are often 4, 5, 6 sometimes contradictory and conflicting definitions of the word "race" - as in, how it is used. The same thing with "interracial". As an English major at two very good schools if there's one thing I know it's how definitions work.

Yes, and I'm here to tell you that there are other voices than yours, pushing a different language. Competition's a wonderful thing, isn't it?

So essentially now that the scientists have proven that race (as we know it) does not exist and we are all one race (by the original SCIENTIFIC definition of race and in terms of other mammals "breeds" and what not), then it is time to recognize that fact officially.

Yes, the government (maybe a new ministry? Minitru?) should proclaim the "official truth" of race for all us backward Kulaks.

Just because this has not come into practice yet does not mean it isn't true. It's not something we should be "waiting to see if it becomes well known", as I said, it's already been clearly proven, and publicizing it can only improve "race relations" and reduce stigma.

Actually, the evidence waiting in the wings (for anyone curious enough to look) is overwhelmingly and diametrically opposed to your entire belief-system on race. Leftists have controlled the public dialog on race (and it is quite similar to yours), but away from tender eyes and ears, the reality is very, very different.

It's one thing trying to get rid of homophobia, but when science has proven that race does not exist and that racism is therefore meaningless, it's definitely time to shout very loudly about that fact, which is what I'm doing.

Sincerely
Fox

Actually, your method is a recipe for racism. Since leftists won't discuss race honestly and witch-hunt anyone who does out of the public sphere (James Watson, anyone?), the racists are the only game in town.

Push the truth out of "respectable" circles, and all you do is **** "respectability."

 

[Morlock.]

Your article excerpt proves nothing. It even claims Jewish people as their own ethic group. That's enough to discredit the entire article right there IMO.

First, it is fallacious to imply that one incorrect fact in a body of text "discredits" the entire text. Freshman logic.

Second, your implication that Jews are not an ethnic group is incorrect. Jews are an ethnic group far more than they are a religious group (I assume that's your alternative, please correct me if I do so in error); hence "secular Jews" (a good Google search term for doubters).

 

[xxaru]

Judge Mathis, a black man, used the term interracial. He didn't use it in a negative way and he didn't use it with any racist connotation. No one in the court room, including the white defendant and her black boyfriend, was upset by the use of the word.

Just because someone uses a word as it is currently accepted in society doesn’t make it right. For years black people were referred to in many different words that were accepted by society (such as colored, negro, etc.)… but that didn’t mean they were right, and as we all know as people got more educated those words have been phased out by the society that created them. Again… ignorance is NOT an excuse. Just because everyone else says it, doesn’t mean that you should be like sheep and follow the herd because you don’t know any better. Learn to think for yourself, and try to understand the logic behind the things you say and the labels you place on people.

 

[xxaru]

I don't have the time to read all your posts and refute the nonsense therein, so I'll just grab this one and make an example of it.


Nonsense. Race exists. Just Google "race does not exist" and fallacy for some reading. Or try these links:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
(scroll down to the part titled "RACE DOES NOT EXIST")

Or try this piece by Nicholas Wade in the NYT:

Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E3DE1E3DF933A15751C1A9649C8B63

I have LOADS more links if anyone wants some good reading and will appreciate my effort, rather than read me Psalms from the book of PC.

This is supposed to refute the existence of race? How? We are all descended from one small group of hominids (AKA "the missing link"); does that obviate the existence of families? Then how can it obviate the existence of race? We're all descended from some unknown, probably long-extinct single-celled organism too - does that mean species does not exist?


Skin color and race are two very distinct categories. See here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html

and here:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php


Is this supposed to be a chain of logic? There are people whose parents were of different races, ergo race does not exist anymore? That's like saying Great Danes and Boston Terriers no longer exist if some Great Danes are bred with some Boston Terriers, even though there are scads of Great Danes and Boston Terriers still around (far more than there are Great Dane/Boston Terrier mixes). That's preposterous.


Nonsense. Check this out:

Race Linked to Genetic Markers
http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/genetics,race,and ancestry/8.html





The one drop rule is as much a black phenomenon as a white one. That's why people like Colin Powell and Halle Berry self-identify as black. Are they racist blacks? Are they racist blacks who "don't know they're racist?"

Btw, I'm curious - can blacks be racist? Can they be racist in more than theory? In other words, are there many racist blacks in America?

"Special," "unusual," and "*****" are your characterizations. I attach none of them to "interracial" or mixed race. Sounds like you just don't like the concept or existence of race and want to wish it away for selfish, personal reasons (whatever they may be).


Mixed-race people ARE unusual. Just look at the population statistics. They ARE NOT normal (I don't mean that in a bad way - I'm not equating normal with good; just look at my beliefs about race - nothing normal about them at all).


You can keep saying it until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it so. Race exists. There is a white race, and a black race. Skin color is not race (it is simply the most obvious marker that attaches to race).

Please, do us all a favor and read a bit about the subject on which you chronically pontificate, because you're sadly uninformed on the topic and you're filling naive people's heads with total nonsense.

You clearly have NO clue what you're talking about. Please don't try to debate in an area that you don't know enough about.

 

[Morlock.]

You clearly have NO clue what you're talking about. Please don't try to debate in an area that you don't know enough about.

Wow, devastating critique.

How about some specifics? If they're beyond you, just fail to respond relevantly and we'll all know to read between the lines.

Besides, there's no "debating" ol' Fox; he's already announced a few posts above that he's too good for the whole "sources" thing. LOL!

 

[xxaru]

********** wrote:
Scientists have proven that all of the so-called "racial differences" actually are completely due to environment and adaptation over time depending on where in the world ancestors lived.

Then you responded:

No, racial differences are due to genetic differences, not environmental differences. Yes, those genetic differences were formed as adaptations to different environments, but I don't see how this leads to anywhere but "race exists."

You have completely contradicted your entire 4 page rant right here. Again… please do not try to debate topics that you have limited understanding of.

 

[Morlock.]

Learn to think for yourself

SUPERB advice, absolutely top-notch. I wish they'd teach critical thinking and intellectual curiosity (insofar as the latter can be taught) in primary and secondary school; those values are what brought me to where I am today.

 

[Morlock.]

********** wrote:
Scientists have proven that all of the so-called "racial differences" actually are completely due to environment and adaptation over time depending on where in the world ancestors lived.

Then you responded:

No, racial differences are due to genetic differences, not environmental differences. Yes, those genetic differences were formed as adaptations to different environments, but I don't see how this leads to anywhere but "race exists."

You have completely contradicted your entire 4 page rant right here.

Try hooked on phonics or something. I'm not going to teach remedial English or "thinking 101" in this thread.

Again… please do not try to debate topics that you have limited understanding of.

If you're going to try to gain the intellectual high ground without actually saying anything, in future You Might try not to end your sentences with prepositions. Every little mistake counts with those substance-free posts.

 

[xxaru]

First, it is fallacious to imply that one incorrect fact in a body of text "discredits" the entire text. Freshman logic.

Second, your implication that Jews are not an ethnic group is incorrect. Jews are an ethnic group far more than they are a religious group (I assume that's your alternative, please correct me if I do so in error); hence "secular Jews" (a good Google search term for doubters).

The fact that somebody would publish something that has incorrect information in it pertaining to the very subject that they are trying to prove is more than enough for anyone with common sense to cast doubt on and/or discredit their entire findings.

 

[xxaru]

Try hooked on phonics or something. I'm not going to teach remedial English or "thinking 101" in this thread.

If you're going to try to gain the intellectual high ground without actually saying anything, in future You Might try not to end your sentences with prepositions. Every little mistake counts with those substance-free posts.

You can resort to trying to insult me, but it won't help prove your argument. People start throwing insults out of frustration when they cannot prove their points.

 

[YMIHERE]

xxaru, you sound like you're from the same charm school as Prof Voluptuary.

 

[Morlock.]

The fact that somebody would publish something that has incorrect information in it pertaining to the very subject that they are trying to prove is more than enough for anyone with common sense to cast doubt on and/or discredit their entire findings.

Nonsense. You're still pursuing your argument-by-logical-fallacy as if I didn't call you out. I did. It's pathetic to argue this way - have some dignity, will you?

Even if we pretend for a moment that you're right (that I made an error (which I did not) or that it casts everything else I have to say into doubt (which it would not)), I can see one clear implication:

Everything you say should be cast into doubt and/or discredited, since you erroneously stated that Jews do not constitute an ethnic group (which they do). Same goes for Fox, since his posts are largely an effort in error.

Since that is the case, the very logic you propound (one error means we should throw out everything a person says), is invalid since you've committed an error.

WTF is this dude - 2nd grade "debate" in between games of tiddly-winks?

P.S. Jews not an ethnic group? WTF is that silliness? TRY GOOGLE for God's sake. Here' I'll spoon-feed you some searches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jewish+ethnic+group&btnG=Google+Search

Here's a fun exercise:
"Jewish Genetics", 16,900 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="jewish+genetics"&btnG=Search

"Christian Genetics", 70 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="christian+genetics"&btnG=Search

"Muslim Genetics", 27 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="muslim+genetics"&btnG=Search

"Buddhist Genetics", 0 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="Buddhist+Genetics"&btnG=Search

"Hindu Genetics", 15 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="Hindu+Genetics"&btnG=Search

 

[Morlock.]

And that's without even controlling for population - there are only 14 million Jews total, and hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims, hundreds of millions of Hindus (no idea how many Buddhists there are).

 

[ChefChiTown]

First, it is fallacious to imply that one incorrect fact in a body of text "discredits" the entire text. Freshman logic.

Second, your implication that Jews are not an ethnic group is incorrect. Jews are an ethnic group far more than they are a religious group (I assume that's your alternative, please correct me if I do so in error); hence "secular Jews" (a good Google search term for doubters).

P.S. Jews not an ethnic group? WTF is that silliness? TRY GOOGLE for God's sake. Here' I'll spoon-feed you some searches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jewish+ethnic+group&btnG=Google+Search

I've been butting heads with Xxaru on this thread (which has been interesting in itself), but I'm going to direct my attention towards you at the moment.

If you can't even look at and verify the information that you are giving us, then how can you expect us to think that what you say is credible?

According to the VERY FIRST LINK provided by YOUR Google search results...

But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race.

The information that you have provided us with is completely contradicting everything you are trying to prove. You're claiming that Jews are a race/ethnic group and then provide data that states otherwise? Yet, you continue to talk to other members on this board like they're uneducated, clueless human beings. Hilarious.

Here are your 3 options to try and save face:

1) Admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're just trying to make yourself feel superior by talking down to people, throwing around big words and providing links to meaningless, unreliable webpages. We'll all get a little smirk on our faces and then drop it. We'll all move on with this debate.

2) Try and word your way out of it, only to find that you'd be digging a deeper hole for yourself. Continue to try and belittle the people on these boards by dishing out *****ish insult after *****ish insult, only to find that, yet again, you'd be digging a deeper hole for yourself.

3) Leave this thread.

 

[xxaru]

Nonsense. You're still pursuing your argument-by-logical-fallacy as if I didn't call you out. I did. It's pathetic to argue this way - have some dignity, will you?

Even if we pretend for a moment that you're right (that I made an error (which I did not) or that it casts everything else I have to say into doubt (which it would not)), I can see one clear implication:

Everything you say should be cast into doubt and/or discredited, since you erroneously stated that Jews do not constitute an ethnic group (which they do). Same goes for Fox, since his posts are largely an effort in error.

Since that is the case, the very logic you propound (one error means we should throw out everything a person says), is invalid since you've committed an error.

WTF is this dude - 2nd grade "debate" in between games of tiddly-winks?

P.S. Jews not an ethnic group? WTF is that silliness? TRY GOOGLE for God's sake. Here' I'll spoon-feed you some searches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jewish+ethnic+group&btnG=Google+Search

Here's a fun exercise:
"Jewish Genetics", 16,900 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="jewish+genetics"&btnG=Search

"Christian Genetics", 70 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="christian+genetics"&btnG=Search

"Muslim Genetics", 27 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="muslim+genetics"&btnG=Search

"Buddhist Genetics", 0 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="Buddhist+Genetics"&btnG=Search

"Hindu Genetics", 15 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="Hindu+Genetics"&btnG=Search

And now you want to claim that Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Christians, etc are all their own separate ethnic groups too? Or are you just trying to justify Jewish people make up an ethnic group simply because more people search for it on google than with other religions? Either way your science and logic is off.

I'm gonna let the others on this thread deal with you (ChefChiTown has some good questions for you to try and clear up) so I can debate with the people who actually know enough to hold up an intellectual discussion on the topics at hand.

 

[Morlock.]

The information that you have provided us with is completely contradicting everything you are trying to prove. You're claiming that Jews are a race/ethnic group and then provide data that states otherwise? Yet, you continue to talk to other members on this board like they're uneducated, clueless human beings. Hilarious.

What's hilarious is that your whole post hinges on your own conflation of race and ethnic group, which is either another straw man (if you're attributing the conflation to me), or a simple error on your part (if the conflation is yours)

1) Admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're just trying to make yourself feel superior by talking down to people, throwing around big words and providing links to meaningless, unreliable webpages. We'll all get a little smirk on our faces and then drop it. We'll all move on with this debate.

Show me the "unreliable" Web page.

 

[Morlock.]

And now you want to claim that Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Christians, etc are all their own separate ethnic groups too?

Jesus. I guess this is what I get for trying to have a serious discussion on a porn board.

Or are you just trying to justify Jewish people make up an ethnic group simply because more people search for it on google than with other religions?

No, "hits" are not a metric of search attempts, they're a metric of search results, i.e., how many pages contain said phrases.

I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even know what a Google hit is.

Why don't you knuckleheads do your own research? You'll discover that Jewry is clearly an ethnic group, more than it is a religious, or even racial, group.

You guys ever heard of the (Israeli) Law of Return?