Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I'm not sure myself. In the US, there is some concern that the majority of the population will be Hispanic at some point in the future (I have an Italian friend who's married to a Puerto Rican who expressed this concern).

Do you have any thoughts on this?

PhilX

Actually neither color truly represents any race, I'm supposedly white, but it's kind of a pukishly peachy pink. In a box of crayola's it used to be called flesh. I think the political correctness movement changed that, not sure.

Still PE, it's a funny question! But it would seem to me that we're all Africans! So I guess that makes us all African color, as ranged as it is.

With porn, you can look at a guy's penis and wonder if he's black, white or something else (I'm white so my preference is white). A factor is the lighting used in the video that can confuse along with the angle (btw I prefer women of the dark persuasion).

PhilX

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:r tedious mess that misconstrues everything that it's possible to misconstrue.

As far as misconstruing just about every thing I've said in the last two weeks, you are the expert.
That bug has crawled so far up your arse it's eating away at your brain.
I can only assume that you change in temperament is due to something that has nothing to do with this Forum.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Actually neither color truly represents any race, I'm supposedly white, but it's kind of a pukishly peachy pink. In a box of crayola's it used to be called flesh. I think the political correctness movement changed that, not sure.

Still PE, it's a funny question! But it would seem to me that we're all Africans! So I guess that makes us all African color, as ranged as it is.

With porn, you can look at a guy's penis and wonder if he's black, white or something else (I'm white so my preference is white). A factor is the lighting used in the video that can confuse along with the angle (btw I prefer women of the dark persuasion).

PhilX

Personally I tend not to dwell on guys penis', but each to their own! I'd surely defend your right to do so!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You don't seem to understand any of my comments. Do you deliberately misconstrue everything I write, or are you really just not very bright? PC. The CLUE is in the name. POLITICAL correctness. It's a political movement. I'm not pulling that out of my arse either. They acknowledge this and have even given themselves a collective title; 'Progressives' (a tragic and self-congratulatory misnomer). The 'politically correct' believe that they, and only they, know what's best for humanity. They behave no differently from religious zealots, believing that their views on morality are the only valid ones. They don't care how they achieve their goal (a humanity that reflects their vision of it). They even have their own language. They have no interest in others' free speech, and will do their utmost to silence anyone who disagrees with them. They are generally hypocrites to a person (again, the same as the religious). Note the protests over Trump. They despise him because they feel he has 'offended' some of their pet causes, yet where were they when their country was bombing the shit out of those same pets, and still is? Typical PC hypocrisy. Come to think of it, it has a lot more in common with religion than politics--just as Nazism did. ...

How is my bullying comment PC? There you go. Implying that political correctness means all that is decent or good in humanity. The PC will only say what they consider 'correct' politically. They loathe the truth. This is why they despise people like Richard Dawkins. He dares to criticise one of their designated pets, yet he's a decent person. He's anti-war. I doubt if he's ever gone out of his way to harm anyone. His crime was to be at odds with the manifesto of PC and its very specific rules. Defining PC is a bit like trying to describe a colour to a blind (sorry, 'sight-impaired') person. Or music to a deaf person (sorry, 'hearing-impaired). It's only those who don't subscribe to it who recognise it.

ps. Can you even read? How the hell would I know why a Jew would cite the Khazar 'theory'? Or do anything else for that matter? I was describing the people that I've encountered who have cited it. I never knew what the fuck they were on about. It seemed to be part of some mish-mash of claims that included rants about Marx, communism, Rothschilds, banks......

Oh. So you are a parent and a teacher, therefore you know everything that goes on between children and teenagers. ...

As a matter of fact teachers tend to be the most ignorant and clueless of anyone.

Of course, you won't get any of this, and come back with another tedious mess that misconstrues everything that it's possible to misconstrue.

Arising_uk wrote:Better than none at all.

Arising_uk wrote:Because I've talked with her. And you for that matter.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:48 pm Veg: lived in cities where Hispanics were the majority, and never had any problems with it. None. Also, it's racist to claim that in a city where the majority are white that this will automatically mean bigotry towards non-white skinned people.

You don't know anything about the USA that is accurate. You get your information about the USA from social media, which presents a distorted image. If you see an act of racism in the USA on YouTube, you know why that's there? Because it is a rare occurrence, not because it is representative of the vast majority of Americans. But, like many bigots, you take comfort in fixating on unusual events and portraying them as representative of the larger population.

It's pointless to demonize everyone in an entire nation, especially one consisting of more than 300 million people. I'm not about to demonize all Germans, Italians, or anyone else, simply because it's easy to find a few bad eggs in their countries.