I’ll try it.
[quoteI am merely challenging the racist label placed on AWC for making a comment based on black while he made a comment based on white.[/quote]
His comment was NOT based on “race”, color, or ANYTHING aside from observation. AWC’s comment, on the other hand, was based solely on race.
yeah, what spoofe said. and anyway all I said was a white guy came third in a race. And I have no doubt that AWC would describe him as white, which is the point since she was the one who was making black/white predictions. When disputing someone’s argument, it’s always most effective to do so on their own definitions.
And are you daring to suggest that Matt Shirvington came third in a less than daunting field, in a less than world class time? How could you? Do you mean some bastard has run significantly faster than our Matt? I don’t believe it… [Princhester marches off singing “Walzing Matilda” loudly and tunelessly].
It’s interesting to note that everyone who discussed the matter agreed with my predictions wholeheartedly (although not always for the clearest reasons). I suppose that makes everyone racists.
What Does All This Have To Do With The OP?
If black people are, on average, better athletes than white people, then they must be less intelligent???
I’ve read every post to this thread, and have yet to see where anyone has proven the negative as AWC asked.
Peace,
mangeorge
false
Again, this just shows how tunnel-visioned you are on this issue. You made a claim that judged a person based on race, and then used that to support a completely unrelated issue, i.e.- that if “race” has something to do with physical attributes, then it must have something to do with mental attributes. Such an assertion is baseless.
Let’s put it this way… I can make the supposition that the winner of a pie-eating contest will be the large guy, not the smaller, skinner guy, because most winners of pie-eating contests I have witnessed have been large men. Using that notion, can I then conclude that large men are undeducated, or lazy, or irresponsible? Of course not. Such an assertion would be ridiculous on its face.
You are comparing two things that have absolutely no relation to each other.
false.
But I’m flattered that you feel the need to set up a straw man.
If I ever set up a straw man, honey, I’ll tell you. Since you seem to enjoy denying your statements, perhaps you would like to tell me exactly why you would even mention the 2004 Olympics in this thread?
If you think I made a certain statement, why not quote me?
(Oh that’s right – kinda hard if I never said what you claim.)
Buh-bye.
Are you denying that you mentioned the 2004 Olympics?
No.
I’m denying this:
Like I said before, if you feel that if I made such an argument, why not just quote me?
(Oh, that’s right – small problem: I never made such an argument)
In the op, AWC, you said this;
Then later you made this statement;
I took your statement, especially the ‘thousand word point’, as part of the evidence of intellectual inequality you claimed in your op to have seen.
Did I jump to a conclusion? Have I misjudged the tone of all your posts to this thread? If so, then I apologize.
Peace,
mangeorge
I believe Mangeorge has already done so (muchos grassy-ass, 'George).
You have maintained throughout this thread that race exists on a biological level. You have also made it explicitly clear through your posts (in this thread and others) that you believe that physical differences arise in these supposed “races”. Now, perhaps I was off the mark in stating that you had specifically tied these physical properties to mental properties, and if that is what you took exception with, I apologize. However, you were also quite incorrect in stating that “everyone who discussed the matter agreed with my predictions wholeheartedly”, which is untrue. That is where my comments came from.