Cultural Genocide

[Immanuel Can]

Let "age" be defined as "youth". Then because you are of some age, you must be young.

This is the conclusion I came to, too, Scott. I asked, and Age won't say; but you can't help but know.

Whoever "Age" is, the "age" in question is young -- mentally, for sure, physically, possibly.

As Walker pointed out earlier, it seems that Age just wants to get into the mix, but lacks the means to bring anything useful to the conversation...kind of like a spoiled child who's been invited to the adult table, yet doesn't know how to behave, so just bangs a spoon. It's best to ignore that.

Don't feel you have to wear yourself out. When you feel it's all too silly, you may want just to move on. Everyone else understands what you're saying, so it's all good.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

but lacks the means to bring nothing useful to the conversation...

I would have thought that was a good thing, lacking the means to bring nothing useful to the conversation

Is this similar to when Americans could care less about things?

[Immanuel Can]

but lacks the means to bring nothing useful to the conversation...

I would have thought that was a good thing, lacking the means to bring nothing useful to the conversation

Is this similar to when Americans could care less about things?

You got me. A double negative. Right you are.

Correction made. Thanks.

[Age]

And we have discovered your own emotive justification to ask this odd question!

Who is the 'we', and what do you propose 'you' and 'them' have discovered? What do you think or believe is my own 'emotive justification' is exactly.

I asked you that to you "odd" question because I wanted to know if you did or did not accept that aboriginal children had been forcibly taken away? Considering the topic of this discussion it seems like a very relevant question to me, especially considering the actual words you have used in this discussion so far.

The who is 'we' or 'you' seems alright for you to use above [underlined] without me thinking nor confusing you as meaning that your point is shared by all. So I know that you understand how context isn't asserting any particular 'we' that you think I'm ganging up against you here. The use of 'we' is to anyone reading here ABLE to interpret your bias and is what the content of the enlargened content I emphasized above. That is, the content of accusing me of some "sort of RACIST REACTION" is your emotive interpretation, not something I imagined.

I am still NO clearer of who the 'we' is that HAS, supposedly, discovered my own, supposed, "emotive justification" to ask that, supposedly, "odd" question. But you do NOT have to answer and clear that up if you so wish not to.

Well considering you have ALREADY made a 'racist reaction' I am not sure what you mean by "accusing you" of some racist reaction. If you have done some thing already, then you have done it. If I observe a 'racist reaction', then that is obviously the interpretation I got and have. Also, there was no need for the "emotive" word, as NO emotion was involved. I was just expressing a view of what I observed happen. Every one of 'you', adult human beings, are racist, so I am not sure why 'emotions' should come into this obvious FACT.

What does it mean to "accept that native children have been forcibly taken away" in context to what I stated?

It does not matter what it means to accept one way or another. Considering what you wrote I was just wondering if you did or did not accept that native children have been forcibly taken away? Your refusal to answer speaks for itself.

No, my content clearly specified my disagreement of native children being 'taken' (derogatorily) and your interest in asking it when it was already understood by my stance against the accusation is intended to rhetorically imply that I am merely not 'accepting' that they were 'taken' (derogatorily) as a matter of fact .

Well, to me, you are only muddying things more now, and not clearing any thing up here.

How could a child now get 'taken' (derogatorily) away from its parents and/or culture?

The term in context to the accusation of cultural genocide is that white people kidnapped the children -- as such would be a derogatory meaning of 'taken' rather than the mere neutral meaning of what is 'taken'.

If a person from a perceived different culture obviously takes away a child from its parents of a perceived "other" culture, then the mere neutral meaning of 'taken' STILL APPLIES. If some thing is 'taken', and it had to be 'forcibly' be done, which obviously it would in just about EVERY case, if not EVERY case, then that can very easily be classed as, and as such mean, 'kidnapped'.

Obviously if a child is 'taken' from its parents unwillingly, then that is 'kidnap'.

If thee Truth of things is 'derogatory', then the Truth IS 'derogatory'. Nothing you can 'try' will lessen this impact.

What is it that you are so terrified of, that you appear so determined to 'try to' minimize and/or justify the actions of obviously 'forced' removal of children from their parents, and/or culture?

Does it have some thing to do with very own adoption, and what that means/meant to you?

It would be like I offered you money and then later told others that you '"took money" from me, which, while technically true, it implies you stole it.

You telling lies does NOT imply I stole any thing. You telling lies does not just imply but actually MEANS you are lying.

By the way, having your child/ren STOLEN from you is NOTHING like your example just given, in many varying ways.

It is obvious that if I gave you money and you accepted it, you 'took' it from me.

Yes that is very true. That is; I TOOK the money that you GAVE me, which is VERY DIFFERENT from I TOOK the money that you did NOT give me.

But without the context, the asserting of 'taking' money from me absent of the understanding of me 'giving' voluntarily would imply you stole it. The same goes with your question and the to the concern of the accusations of white people 'taking' their children.

But when did native people's EVER voluntarily 'give up' their own children?

If there are few cases of this happening, then that is WHEN that happened. But out of ALL of the other cases, then this 'giving voluntarily' there own children did NOT happen. Therefore, these children were forcibly 'taken' and STOLEN and under horrendous conditions.

This REALLY is NOT that hard to ACCEPT and UNDERSTAND.

This is a question of fact of which no one can know without actual evidence and of which I already mentioned is NOT provided.

Well the evidence is there, but if you see or not just depends on if you want to look at it, and see it, or not.

Okay, now you are positing that Natives were 'taken' (with the implicit derogatory meaning of 'stolen' or 'kidnapped').

You can call it 'derogatory' if you like, or not, either way it does not add to nor lessen what thee actual Truth IS.

Also remember, and noted, is you, by your own "self", added the 'derogatory' word and meaning here. No one else had, and that word and its meaning has never even been discussed. Remember how concerned you were before that the meaning of the words 'culture' and 'genocide' had not been talked about and discussed, but now you seem quite happy to add your own words, with your meanings, whenever you like.

Also, what you do mean 'now' I am positing ... My view has NOT changed, yet anyway, throughout this discussion from the outset.

Thus, now the onus is on you to provide such evidence. See, ...I knew what you were getting at by your rhetorical question.

But you could NOT have known what I was "getting at" by my "rhetorical" question, because I did NOT ask a 'rhetorical' question. I asked Truly OPEN clarifying questions because I did NOT know what your view was and because I was NOT assuming any thing at all.

If you thought taking all this time, through all the words we have used, to just to the point of 'you' wanting 'me' to provide evidence for some thing, then this could have already been done and settled way before now. If you just asked me in the beginning what my view was, then I would have told you, and then you could have just told us that the ONUS IS ON ME to provide evidence. This would have saved a lot.

Now, if you did NOT want the ONUS ON YOU to provide evidence, mostly because you have absolutely NO evidence at all provide, otherwise, if you did you would have already put it forward, then I will provide evidence.

You just have to inform me and us what do you want evidence for exactly?

And you just provided the proof of your deception.

What is this in relation to exactly?

Please provide the evidence of the crimes of Native children kidnapped.

When ANY child is taken from their parents, when the parents do NOT want them taken, then that is what is called 'kidnapped'.
Kidnapping is a crime.
You told us that children were taken from their parents.
Therefore, that is the evidence of the crimes of (native) children kidnapped.

And ask yourself what interest you think the adoptees had in mind?

Firstly, I am NOT going to ask "myself" a ridiculous question like this.
Second, what 'adoptees' are you talking about?
Third, I have NO idea what ALL adoptees were thinking at a particular time.

IF 'adoptee' means the child. I do NOT even know what one of them was thinking at the very exact moment of being 'given' or 'taken' away. Some are a day old for God's sake.

Children do NOT usually think about interest when they are being 'stolen'. They usually just want what they want at that moment. What they usually do NOT want is to be separated from the ones that Truly love them.

What value is it for parental adoptees to desire Native children against the will of the parents?

Are 'you', by any chance, of aboriginal descent, was 'taken' or 'given' away at a very young age and were adopted out to another culture's family?

What does the word 'adoptee' even mean? Who is thee 'adoptee', and who is the 'parental adoptee'?

Now, what value is it for a person who desires to adopt a native child against the will of that child's parents, then there is absolutely NO value other than utter and pure greed and selfishness of that person.

Given this was a derogatory act as assumed, what function does it serve to adopt and take on the burden of raising other people's children of a class of people they presumed were less than themselves?

A lot of assumptions going on here, which detracts from the actual Truth of things.

The people who worked for the governments 'took' children from their parents, for whatever reason they so chose, now, if they did not want to kill these children, then they had to do some thing with them. One of the ways that was decided to do with these 'taken' children was to put them up for adoption. Contrary to your presumption, some people did NOT see these children as "less than themselves" and wanted to take care of them, "the best they could", as they say.

Maybe you are confused, are you aware that absolutely EVERY one thinks differently? Therefore, there is NO one reason for ALL people in particular situations like this.

Also, what kind of 'human being' thinks some are "less than another". Some might even be considering and wondering if the 'human being' who thinks this way is actually a 'human being' at all?

Slavery?

Are you joking?

Are you really under some sort of illusion that ALL people who adopted 'native children' wanted them or could have wanted them for slavery?

OF COURSE some might have wanted them for this, and OF COURSE some would have used them this way, but FOR ALL to think this way is just ABSURD.

Did they think of them as cute pets to adore?

Again, what is with the 'trying to' squeeze and put THEM into the one category?

These can and do exist.

OF COURSE. This behavior can be seen in lots of places. In fact it is famously advertised, and presented, on screens, how the rich and famous find things cute and adorable and buy them up, through "adoption".

But would the intention of adoption where legal be criminal?

How could ANY thing, which is 'legal' be 'criminal'?

And if so, why are none of these criminals being charged?

I do NOT even know what you are on about now.

The fact that you opted to ask this is begging of some meaning that I clearly asserted was NOT proven to be determined.

I do not understand this.

I asserted that the accusations regarding cultural genocide are untrue of the general population outside of particular government preferences to hand them over to religious organizations to manage. The charges of abuses, however possible, are (1) not backed by actual charges against particular people NOR the religious organizations and (2) if true, it would imply a massive conspiracy of people in which many numbers of people should be everywhere. We live in a time here in Canada where actual people are being accused openly regardless of any assumption of innocence on many areas. But it is absent in the actual cases of the supposed systematic abuses by invisible perpetrators.

Assert all you want.

Obviously people's of varying countries have been 'taking' the children, and the land, of "other" cultures, which has obviously decimated those cultures, which in essence is 'cultural genocide'. How could anyone not see this or assert that it is not true.

Absolutely EVERY 'culture' of absolutely EVERY thing eventually gets 'taken' over and decimated. This is HOW the Universe keeps turning over, changing, or evolving.

What is WRONG with the Truth?

We can either LOOK AT the Truth of things, and discuss the It. Or, we can 'try' to ignore the Truth, and/or 'try to' assert that the Truth of things does NOT happen.

Honestly, I much prefer the former one.

So, if you believe the charges true, who particularly are the guilty. Is there a list?

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.

Besides that I do not even know what the charges are, and I have absolutely NO interest in laying blame nor in charging particular people for particular things. I much prefer to just LOOK AT and concentrate on the WHOLE overall picture of things. That way I do NOT get bogged down in absolutely totally unnecessary "stuff".

What you may be unaware of is that our Supreme Court literally prevented the exposure of the potential guilty parties due to a protection of the churches involved, ...similar to how the Catholic Churches have prevented access to internal knowledge of abuses by priests. Because here the Catholic Church and all other 'friendly' assignments to other Christian churces under their oversight is Constitutionally protected, the decision to quickly settle in a 'final' agreement was intentionally decided politically to transfer any burden over to the taxpayer rather than the potential guilty parties....where they existed. Because they didn't WANT the exposure, they agreed to pay off all Natives without actual charges if they agreed NOT to say who specifically abused them. They were granted a right to speak publically about the abuses (minus particular names of particular abuses) as part of the acceptance of the money benefits offered. All that any Native required to get this money was to assert they have gone to one of these schools (for the Residential School cases) or that they were adopted to white families.

For your information I was totally UNAWARE, and totally DISINTERESTED.

PLEASE provide the evidence you think justifies ACTUAL abuses universally existent if you doubt me on this. It shouldn't be hard given the numbers, right?

The way you write I REALLY and TRULY can NOT follow you and do NOT even know what you talk about, most of the time.

For example IF there is ACTUAL abuses, then NO evidence is NEEDED. Therefore, I would NOT have to provide the evidence I think justifies such things.

I have NO idea what 'universally existent' means. I do NOT know what I would "doubt you on" exactly. I do NOT even know what you are talking about, let alone to doubt you about.

I have NO idea what "numbers" are in relation to, nor what should or should not be "hard" is in relation to either.

And then let's get to your own underlying opinion about whether "cultural genocide" is a reality.

If you want to get to my own "underlying" opinion about whether 'cultural genocide' is a reality or not, then just tell me what does 'cultural genocide' mean.

I have already given my view on what forcibly 'taking' of the children of one culture, and what the 'taking' of those up and coming future adults would do to that culture

We (general 'we') can already gamble that genocides have occurred and that many would like to crush certain common behaviors called, 'culture'.

Like for what example?

What are some of the certain common behaviors, which you call 'culture', would you like to 'crush'?

By the way, when a lot of the common behaviors, or the current 'culture', of 'you', human beings, in the times of when this is written, are self-eradicated and crushed once and for all for good will have a tremendously great impact on the land called 'earth', and for ALL those earthlings.

One of those common behaviors that would be great to crush and self-eliminate for good would be the one where each 'culture' LOOKS AT the "other" as though their behaviors are WRONG and BAD but neglect to LOOK AT what they, "themselves", are doing which is WRONG and BAD itself.

But the accusation of "cultural genocide" is like what people might collectively opt to destroy of derogatory behaviors, like rape, given many consider this a 'culture' too.

And you KNOW of how many 'cultures' that say "rape is a part of 'our' culture"?

Maybe if you were to STOP with the judging of "others" and START LOOKING AT this from not just a 'me' and 'my opinions are good and right' perspective and LOOKING AT things from a Truly OPEN and OVERALL perspective instead. For example you could START LOOKING AT WHY 'you' adult human beings WANT to have sex in the first place, instead of judging 'rape', and work out WHY you WANT sex when you do NOT want to make more human beings. This is best done by LOOKING AT the WRONG that one's "self" does FIRST, and discovering WHY 'you' are the way 'you ARE'. Once 'you' workout WHY 'you' do ALL the WRONG that you do DO, then you will have worked out WHY ALL people do the WRONG that they DO, then 'you' help partake in STOPPING ALL the WRONG, by PREVENTING WRONG, like rape, from EVER happening again to ANY one, which coincidentally happens in EVERY culture.

But in context to a 'cultural genocide" the implication is that some race of people are assumed to intrinsically own some environmental behavior simply for being of that race and that others want to destroy the behavior due to a hatred of the particular people assumed to have proprietary rights to claim the behavior.

You, human beings, can IMPLY any thing about any one, but that will NEVER make it to be thee Truth.

There are so many DIFFERENT VARIABLES in what you just said to LOOKED AT and discuss that a whole new thread could be made just for this one paragraph.

Keeping LOOKING AT what is IMPLIED and/or NOT IMPLIED if you WANT. I prefer to just keep LOOKING AT what IS thee actual Truth of things instead.

Do you think that if one has Native genetics who is adopted to a white family have some internal 'culture' assigned to do Pow Wows or have some intrinsic closer connection to plants and animals and the Earth over non-Natives and that such white families raising such children are abusing them for NOT having this known and taught to them?

Is there a human being that does NO have native genetics?

If yes, then WHO?

Also, and very contrary to popular belief, there is absolutely NO such thing as an accurate description or definition 'white' in regards to human beings.

By the way, what do you think your hatred or dislike of all of this here has come from?

Could it be because:
You were adopted?
You were 'taken'?
You were 'given'?
You were a 'native child' and 'taken'?
You were a 'native child' and 'given'?
You were not given compensation but others were.
You feel like you missed out on some thing.
You do not like paying taxes and do not like seeing that money 'taken' from you, 'given' to others?

What is it with this issue that 'you' REALLY do NOT like?

[Age]

You keep saying things like; "We first NEED to discuss what 'culture' means or what 'cultural genocide' means". So, I start to discuss this alleged NEED by providing definitions of these and other words that you wanted definitions for, for meaning and for shared understanding of, but then you just disregard my definitions and meanings, and ignore them completely, only to repeat that: "We first NEED to discuss what the 'culture' word mean and what the accusation of 'cultural genocide' means. So, how about you START discussing what these things mean by responding to what they mean, to me?

I have already described what they mean, so what it is that you appear to be waiting for?

I have too much to read AND I also write detailed responses. As such, if you place any responses a mile into one post, I cannot even get to it. The acceleration of lengthy irrelevancy is preventing us from getting anywhere. If you wanted clarity, you would have accepted my request to restart using MY given definitions.

But I did re-start using YOUR given definitions.

And, If the Truth be KNOWN, If I WANT clarity, then I ask clarifying questions.

You didn't accept nor deny but insisted that I answer your prior questions with priority immediately regardless without those steps.

Because at that time I did NOT care about any thing else other than if you accepted or not whether native children had been forcibly taken?

If you 'started' your own definition later somewhere, I missed it in the mess

I am NOT sure how you could MISS my OWN definitions when I specifically wrote them exactly like this (underlined):

if you really did want to answer that question, then you would have started putting forward definitions for words like 'accept', 'native', 'forcibly', and 'taken' already.

So, I do NOT once again get BLAMED for PREVENTING communication I will provide a start;

'Accept', believe or come to recognize (a proposition) as valid or correct.

'Native', indigenous inhabitants of a place

'Forcibly', against one's wishes.

'Taken', removed.

Now, if you NEED to KNOW what I internalize the meaning of my question, then I internalize the meaning of my question as:
Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

Or, in other words, Do you believe or come to recognize the proposition as valid or correct that indigenous inhabitants of a place were, against their wishes, removed?

but would still miss them knowing you have uncertain respect for my own definitions proposed.

When did I EVER say any thing like that that would make you come to assume or conclude such a thing?

I even acknowledged some of your definitions prior.

If I am the one proposing something to which you are confused about, then I own the right to define the terms you are confused about.

Do you think I was confuse about your definitions?

Or could I have been CLEAR about how some of those definitions would obviously NEVER work?

If I go by what you WANT to define differently, you are attempting to control the stage with the capacity to undefine my own arguments using your terms.

LOL

And, could I say the EXACT SAME THING back to 'you'? "If I go by what you WANT to define differently, you are attempting to control the stage with the capacity to undefine my own arguments using your terms." Or, does this proposition only work ONE way?

Let "age" be defined as "youth". Then because you are of some age, you must be young.

If I want to question something you posit, you have the right to define your words so that I can understand you; when you want to understand something I say, I should define the terms I intend you to understand of my own arguments.

When I want to understand some thing you say, then I will ASK YOU A CLARIFYING QUESTION, understood?

To me, Life is NOT hard at all, and OBVIOUSLY the best way to understand "another" is to ask them a clarifying question. Living and understanding REALLY is very simple and easy indeed.

If you answer it or not answer it is entirely up to YOU. And, if you want to answer it, then HOW you answer it is also entirely up to YOU. Some times the NON answers people provide work far more in my favor than if they did provide an answer. So, either way works PERFECTLY FINE with ME.

Also, LOOK AT the words you used above just here. It appears that you can QUESTION something I posit, but I can only UNDERSTAND what you say.

Also, contrary to what you actually do, you wrote here that 'you should define the terms you intend me to understand of your own arguments', yet when I asked you a question on whether or not you accepted something, so that I could better understand the terms of your own argument, instead of you defining the terms you intend me to understand, you have just flat out refused to do any thing in regards to that Truly very simple and very easy Truly OPEN straightforward clarifying question.

If we are attempting neutral grounds, then I (or you) propose a definition and ask whether the other agrees to use it or not.

This has ALREADY taken place.

You proposed a definition:
"Cultural Genocide" is an expression created by those who believe that some particular group or groups of people are being extremely discriminated against by a presumption of those discriminating as intending to DESTROY it.

Then I wrote, and asked whether the other (you) agree to use it or not:
IF some people come to your land, take over your land, and do not let you live how you used to, then is that 'cultural genocide'?

Again, this is a yes or no answer.

So, as evidenced just now what you just wrote in regards to, "If we are attempting neutral grounds, then ...." has ALREADY BEEN DONE. But, for reasons known only to you, you did NOT reply nor continue on with the 'neutral grounds' of communicating style.

(But if we LOOK AT what you wrote, from a very subtle perspective, you did NOT actually say that YOU had to reply nor answer the question I asked in regards to whether you agree to use it or not.)

But anyway, you have done this a bit here, that is; suggest we do some thing, which I then oblige and do, but then you go off tangent again about some other thing or not.

[Age]

Let "age" be defined as "youth". Then because you are of some age, you must be young.

This is the conclusion I came to, too, Scott. I asked, and Age won't say; but you can't help but know.

Whoever "Age" is, the "age" in question is young -- mentally, for sure, physically, possibly.

As Walker pointed out earlier, it seems that Age just wants to get into the mix, but lacks the means to bring anything useful to the conversation...kind of like a spoiled child who's been invited to the adult table, yet doesn't know how to behave, so just bangs a spoon. It's best to ignore that.

Don't feel you have to wear yourself out. When you feel it's all too silly, you may want just to move on. Everyone else understands what you're saying, so it's all good.

Now is this the way 'philosophy' is done in the years of when this is written, once again LOOK AT the person, and not the words, and judge that person in some way, ignore completely what the discussion is about, and see if we can bandy around as many people as possible to 'try to' ridicule and put that one down, with absolutely NO comprehension that that one was the FIRST to ADMIT that they are absolutely USELESS at communicating, and the very reason they are in a philosophy forum is because, according to those known as "philosophers", they are made up of the greatest "minds" on earth. So, if one Truly WANTED to learn how to communicate better, then who would be the best ones to go to, other than the so called "GREATEST"?

And, to PROVE what you say about how EVERY one understands what "scott mayers" is saying, how about 'you', "immanuel can", explain what "scott mayers" is actually saying.

Obviously if you do NOT even attempt to explain any thing, then the readers will come to some sort of conclusion. As I say 'your' non words and non responses can say and prove more, in regards to what I am pointing out, than what I could ever actually say.

Once again a CLAIM is made, let us SEE once again how much if any thing is provided to back up and support that CLAIM.

[Scott Mayers]

I am still NO clearer of who the 'we' is that HAS, supposedly, discovered my own, supposed, "emotive justification" to ask that, supposedly, "odd" question. But you do NOT have to answer and clear that up if you so wish not to.

Well considering you have ALREADY made a 'racist reaction' I am not sure what you mean by "accusing you" of some racist reaction. If you have done some thing already, then you have done it. If I observe a 'racist reaction', then that is obviously the interpretation I got and have. Also, there was no need for the "emotive" word, as NO emotion was involved. I was just expressing a view of what I observed happen. Every one of 'you', adult human beings, are racist, so I am not sure why 'emotions' should come into this obvious FACT.

Define 'racist'.

After that, point out which my 'racist reaction is with your explanation of why you think this is the case.

[Scott Mayers]

... If you wanted clarity, you would have accepted my request to restart using MY given definitions.

But I did re-start using YOUR given definitions.

And, If the Truth be KNOWN, If I WANT clarity, then I ask clarifying questions.

If you wanted clarity, you'd have responded up front to your affirmation of agreement or disagreement of my given definitions.

You're wasting your time writing what I cannot waste my time on. I have a lot of other things to do now that requires me to place time limits on you uniquely when I don't trust it will go anywhere.

[Nick_A]

... If you wanted clarity, you would have accepted my request to restart using MY given definitions.

But I did re-start using YOUR given definitions.

And, If the Truth be KNOWN, If I WANT clarity, then I ask clarifying questions.

If you wanted clarity, you'd have responded up front to your affirmation of agreement or disagreement of my given definitions.

You're wasting your time writing what I cannot waste my time on. I have a lot of other things to do now that requires me to place time limits on you uniquely when I don't trust it will go anywhere.

It's like chasing women. It is only worthwhile when a man believes there is something worth the effort. How to know is a secret closely guarded by women.

[Age]

I am still NO clearer of who the 'we' is that HAS, supposedly, discovered my own, supposed, "emotive justification" to ask that, supposedly, "odd" question. But you do NOT have to answer and clear that up if you so wish not to.

Well considering you have ALREADY made a 'racist reaction' I am not sure what you mean by "accusing you" of some racist reaction. If you have done some thing already, then you have done it. If I observe a 'racist reaction', then that is obviously the interpretation I got and have. Also, there was no need for the "emotive" word, as NO emotion was involved. I was just expressing a view of what I observed happen. Every one of 'you', adult human beings, are racist, so I am not sure why 'emotions' should come into this obvious FACT.

Define 'racist'.

A 'racist' is a human being who separate human beings into different races.

So, my use of the word 'racist' in the way I used that term 'racist reaction' is, you have reacted, by writing words, which separate human beings into different 'races'.

After that, point out which my 'racist reaction is with your explanation of why you think this is the case.

Your use of the words 'native' and 'white', if I recall correctly, is why I saw a 'racist reaction'.

[Age]

... If you wanted clarity, you would have accepted my request to restart using MY given definitions.

But I did re-start using YOUR given definitions.

And, If the Truth be KNOWN, If I WANT clarity, then I ask clarifying questions.

If you wanted clarity, you'd have responded up front to your affirmation of agreement or disagreement of my given definitions.

I thought I had. But, obviously, I may have missed some, and/or not made myself clear.

You're wasting your time writing what I cannot waste my time on.

But I am not wasting my time writing because writing, whatever I write, is helping me.

I have a lot of other things to do now that requires me to place time limits on you uniquely when I don't trust it will go anywhere.

Okay.

[Age]

But I did re-start using YOUR given definitions.

And, If the Truth be KNOWN, If I WANT clarity, then I ask clarifying questions.

If you wanted clarity, you'd have responded up front to your affirmation of agreement or disagreement of my given definitions.

You're wasting your time writing what I cannot waste my time on. I have a lot of other things to do now that requires me to place time limits on you uniquely when I don't trust it will go anywhere.

It's like chasing women. It is only worthwhile when a man believes there is something worth the effort. How to know is a secret closely guarded by women.

I certainly have not kept a secret of why I am here in this forum. I can not waste my time writing because of what I am getting from writing, no matter what it is I write.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A 'racist' is a human being who separate human beings into different races.



Your use of the words 'native' and 'white', if I recall correctly, is why I saw a 'racist reaction'.

Whose 'definition' is that??

[Age]

A 'racist' is a human being who separate human beings into different races.



Your use of the words 'native' and 'white', if I recall correctly, is why I saw a 'racist reaction'.

Whose 'definition' is that??

Mine

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A 'racist' is a human being who separate human beings into different races.



Your use of the words 'native' and 'white', if I recall correctly, is why I saw a 'racist reaction'.

Whose 'definition' is that??

Mine

Oh really? In that case every person on the planet is a 'racist' (no surprises there) including all the hypocritical PC fuckwits who think they are the moral standardbearers for humanity. It's the PC who are always bleating on about protected 'groups' of people, then self-righteously announcing that there is 'no such thing as 'race' ', while at the same time refusing to define what the definition of 'race' is that they are claiming 'doesn't exist'. They are also the ones who throw around the 'r' word like confetti, at anyone who dares to so much as mention another person's.. ahem... colour/religion/culture--whatever you want to call 'it'. Apparently we are 'allowed' to use the word 'ethnicity' (and even the word 'group' (but only on their terms) ) but not the word 'race', because the PCnazifascists have decided that this is the way it's going to be, or suffer their mob wrath and insults and very shallow and public displays of virtue-signalling.