Originally posted by howardgeeand, Howard, I'm pretty sure you are going to pull a stat on how much more likely a Muslim is to be a terrorist (but let's not forget the McVeighs of this world) than a non-Muslim. Of course, the average length of miniskirts decreased as TV ownership increased during the 1960s too - correlation does not necessarily equal causation, my friend.
..because, like it or not, "British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442646.stm
Originally posted by scottishinnzJust trying to refute the accusations that I am racist, when I am just presenting the facts.
and, Howard, I'm pretty sure you are going to pull a stat on how much more likely a Muslim is to be a terrorist (but let's not forget the McVeighs of this world) than a non-Muslim. Of course, the average length of miniskirts decreased as TV ownership increased during the 1960s too - correlation does not necessarily equal causation, my friend.
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeI don’t think you are a racist because you showed that Pakistanis inbreed. I think you are a racist for trying to insinuate, in your deleted thread, that as a result they were retards that had a higher likelihood of being suicide bombers.
Just trying to refute the accusations that I am racist, when I am just presenting the facts.
The reason I think you are racist, is that you got two sets of data which in no way relate to each other and tried to generalise a nation of people as retarded suicide bombers. THATS why you are a racist. And if you're genuinely not a racist, well then you are exceptionally stupid. Perhaps as a result of hundreds of years of inbreeding in Britain?
Originally posted by EsotericWell, I think that my "This is logic not racism" thread has proven that the structure of the argument was not inherently racist.
I don’t think you are a racist because you showed that Pakistanis inbreed. I think you are a racist for trying to insinuate, in your deleted thread, that as a result they were retards that had a higher likelihood of being suicide bombers.
The reason I think you are racist, is that you got two sets of data which in no way relate to each other and tried to ...[text shortened]... ou are exceptionally stupid. Perhaps as a result of hundreds of years of inbreeding in Britain?
And this thread proves that the premise was not racist, but factual.
Therefore it is not possible for a combination of the two two become racist.
I doubt that you could see past your pig-headed political correctness to appreciate this though.
2 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeYou are absolutely right. I won't see past my pig headed view that you are a racist.
I doubt that you could see past your pig-headed political correctness to appreciate this though.
If it wasn’t an attack on Pakistani's then what was the point of your thread?
One person in our conversation has a irrational hate for Muslims, and it's not me. Can you do the math there buddy?
Originally posted by EsotericI did not mention Muslims once.
You are absolutely right. I won't see past my pig headed view that you are a racist.
If it wasn’t an attack on Pakistani's then what was the point of your thread?
One person in our conversation has a irrational hate for Muslims, and it's not me. Can you do the math there buddy?
If it is an attack on Pakistanis, and their tendency to inbreed and produce defective children, then is this wrong?
After all, this is precisely what they are doing.
Would you prefer to let them carry on this irresponsible behaviour?
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgee3 Premises:
Well, I think that my "This is logic not racism" thread has proven that the structure of the argument was not inherently racist.
And this thread proves that the premise was not racist, but factual.
Therefore it is not possible for a combination of the two two become racist.
I doubt that you could see past your pig-headed political correctness to appreciate this though.
1. You have no evidence of the IQ of suicide bombers or whether they were
conceived from a Consanguinous relationship.
2. You have no knowledge of the recruitment process for suicide bombers and little
understanding of the complexities of setting up such a plot.
3. Your argument provides no other purpose than to make you feel better about yourself.
Conclusion:
You're a racist.
Originally posted by howardgeeNo, your original post tried to label Pakistanis as retarded suicide bombers because they inbred. What was the point of this?
If it is an attack on Pakistanis, and their tendency to inbreed and produce defective children, then is this wrong?
After all, this is precisely what they are doing.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere was only one Tim McVeigh...there were 19 Mohammed Attahs and millions more who want to emulate him....😲
and, Howard, I'm pretty sure you are going to pull a stat on how much more likely a Muslim is to be a terrorist (but let's not forget the McVeighs of this world) than a non-Muslim. Of course, the average length of miniskirts decreased as TV ownership increased during the 1960s too - correlation does not necessarily equal causation, my friend.
Originally posted by howardgeeIt shows that one of the premises was factual. You still haven't shown any evidence that people with mental retardation are more likely to become suicide bombers. I wouldn't call that racist though, rather prejudiced against disabled people.
Well, I think that my "This is logic not racism" thread has proven that the structure of the argument was not inherently racist.
And this thread proves that the premise was not racist, but factual.
Therefore it is not possible for a combination of the two two become racist.
I doubt that you could see past your pig-headed political correctness to appreciate this though.
I think Howard, correct me if I don't speak for you, sir, was trying to equate inbreeding, which DOES take place in Muslim society to a large extent, first cousin-wise, with crossed-mental-wiring, or medically speaking, anti-social behavior, especially in the radical manner in which the Islamofascists are easily brainwashed and don't think twice before killing innocent civilians by strapping suicide packages to their waists, therefore, they are more likely to be brainwashd into being martyrs...just as inbreeding/and or brainwashing in the U.S, Utah being an example, could be a cause of what some people do; examples such as Jim Jones in Guyana in 1978, David Koresh in Waco, TX in 1993...it isn't limited to one religion or one race, but Islam seems to practice it more than any other...just a theory on my part....and not a racist one...
Originally posted by chancremechanicSo would the common slur against southerners as being a bunch of inbred duelling banjo yokels ,quick to don a cape and cloak and emblazon their brand of identity with burning crosses be a racist or a factual statement.
I think Howard, correct me if I don't speak for you, sir, was trying to equate inbreeding, which DOES take place in Muslim society to a large extent, first cousin-wise, with crossed-mental-wiring, or medically speaking, anti-social behavior, especially in the radical manner in which the Islamofascists are easily brainwashed and don't think twice befo ...[text shortened]... eems to practice it more than any other...just a theory on my part....and not a racist one...
If one were to say that they lost the war due to their inbred stupefaction, what sort of comment would that be? Surely the insecurity displayed by the KKK against African Americans in the wilful and sustained campaign of hatred and malicious acts perpetrated against them, is further proof that they were indeed either mentally retarded or mentaly deficient or both.
Given that assertion, would it be unrealistic to concur that a typical southern person then as proof by way of inferred argument is genetically inferior, most probably as a result of rampant inbreeding, no doubt as a result of the numbers of children sired by one father who then may have been bred back into the plantation class, if by accident they were 'fortunate' enough to have a fair skin and a caucasian appearance and used the gullibility of strangers to escape an enslaved past? Or would it have been just a case of with all that much sex going on , would it be any wonder that the siblings of some plantation owner turned in on themselves while pappy was enjoying the consolation of their nanny down on the farm?
Originally posted by kmax87Yeah, everything you stated was pretty much stereotypical, uneducated, racially-tinged bigotry. Don't you agree? What's your point? There was slave/master 'breeding', but all that produced was a "mulatto", and probably an intelligent one, not a suicide bomber......
So would the common slur against southerners as being a bunch of inbred duelling banjo yokels ,quick to don a cape and cloak and emblazon their brand of identity with burning crosses be a racist or a factual statement.
If one were to say that they lost the war due to their inbred stupefaction, what sort of comment would that be? Surely the insecurity displ ...[text shortened]... ned in on themselves while pappy was enjoying the consolation of their nanny down on the farm?
By the way, "mulatto" isn't used anymore as many blacks and whites inter-marry these days, so it is considered offensive; I only used it in the context that it was used in the 19th century.
Didn't England send its 'inbreds' to Australia to colonize the continent?...therefore, today is the result of 200+ years of experience?....