Skeptic Project

a sheep - basically what every conspiracy retard called anyone here on their sites.

Seriously you may as well just fuck off because every post you make puts your further down the evolutionary ladder.

Trying to adjust to the level of evolution in here. Need to descent a bit further to get to your level ....

What argument? Did you actually read anything I wrote? I feel like trying to explain human nature to a colony of cockroaches, at least the intellectual equivalent of em .... and that's a stretch

What racist thing did I say? Tell me. You got nothing on me. The only thing I did was put some nuance into a story where you stopped reading after hearing the name of the guy telling the story. Stop accusing me falsely.

Still nothing racist, it's in fact impossible to proof I am a racist, because I simply am no racist.

Quote from Damarauder

Still nothing racist, it's in fact impossible to proof I am a racist, because I simply am no racist.

Prove it.

Quote from Damarauder

Lol, clown. You guys are claiming I am a racist, so it's your job to argument the claims.

You can't prove you aren't a racist because you are one.

You can't even tell when people are winding you up by rubbing your own shit in your face can you. Further evidence your comprehension is low.

First of all, it's prove. Proof is a noun. Prove is a verb. Let's keep that straight.

Your assertion is that it is impossible to declare you a racist because you have not said anything racist. You further maintain that your referencing to individuals with more than dubious moral, ethical, and intellectual integrity must be taken only to the extent that their arguments are divorced from their views. This becomes a really tenuous position to maintain, however, when their arguments are, in fact, linked to their personal views. Let us consider the following: when an individual has professed and indicated racial bias or racism, should we also take their arguments as being intellectually valid? No, certainly not. If you want to divorce a person from their argument, their argument cannot be inherently bound to their personal views. There are many scholars and intellectuals who are jackasses in their personal life, but their arguments stand on evidence and consistent logic alone. This is not the case when someone who, say, was the Grand Wizard of the KKK also wants to make arguments about racial policies. Why should I take seriously a man who knowingly and willingly operated with an organization known for their coercive and racist policies? Sure, if he made the argument that metal is a better material to make a car with than wood, his affiliation with the KKK does not discount or jeopardize the veracity of his statement. However, neither is he a particularly persuasive individual. When we consider formal argumentation, we must always establish and maintain ethos, as Aristotle argued in "Rhetoric." Ethos, that is one's character as a person or writer of repute, is fundamental to persuasion and argumentation. If one chooses certain behaviors that jeopardize their reputation as an individual (such as highly repugnant social practice) then one also immediately implicates their status as a scholar, politician, or notable figure.

Now you further claim that you have said nothing racist and can, therefore, not be proven racist. But this is already on fairly shaky ground, for in another thread in which you cite David Duke, you also write

DD is definitely also no racist, even though he has been in the KKK. He simply dares to address a controversial racial issue and I think he has a point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFaGa6Hnsc

The defense here is that he is a "racial realist" which amounts to little more than rather unimpressive rhetorical gymnastics in an effort to remove the stigma affixed to Duke's position. Let's just look at the video and not that he works off the supposition that no one would "dare call an amnesty group overwhelmingly Hispanic." Considering that amnesty groups are not ipso facto Hispanic, I fail to see where he thinks he's gaining traction here. Duke supports racial homogeneity, which itself stems from an unscientific, uneducated, and irrational view of what race is and what it implies. Duke's whole position operates under the assumption that there are predetermined races that maintain a right to preservation. You can dress this up all you want, but this is racism. Not only that, it is scientifically, anthropologically, and logically erroneous. If you maintain the position that "racial realism" is viable, you are yourself racist. You are racist because you maintain that race is something that presupposes a notion of purity, that demands preservation, and may be an acceptable ground upon which to socially coerce people into social policies. The typical response to this, of course, runs that things like "affirmative action" are likewise racist social policies. Of course, the key distinction is that these policies are aimed at trying to rectify social injustices (as defined by any sensible understanding of the legal, moral, and ethical values upon which this country has been founded) stemming from systemic, historical, and pervasive inequalities. And while these policies are not perfect, they are also fundamentally different in their ends and means. What Duke supports is not "racial realism." It's racism. Also, as a quick aside, he says that the 65% of people who voted for him for Louisiana Representative were called racist while the African Americans who voted for Obama were not. Let's just be completely aware of what an idiot he's being here. The 65% who voted for him were called racist because they were voting for a man with a racist track record, not because they voted for a white guy. He then proceeds to point out that Obama had Jewish contributors and that Wall Street is run by Jewish institutions, which runs contrary to the founding of the US by "European Americans" (the glaring idiocy of such a claim not withstanding). You have to try really hard not to see how that's racist.

So you claim you haven't said anything racist, yet by saying you think Duke has a point and defending him, you are in fact saying something racist.

TL;DR Shut up. You're an idiot.