I'm not a racist, but I am...

This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."

Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..

Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...

I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.

I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.

How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.

>> imagine what a nation of people of exceptional intelligence would be like.

It'd be named Norway, and it's the capitol of suicide.

The world would be better if developed countries didn't have to drag into progress a continent that is behind time.

>>599
Wait, let's make this clear. Unlike you I agree only with facts and science, so I recognise the fact that "anglo" isn't a race. Sorry bud, Aryans don't exist and the biggest gap between anglos and arabs is 200 generations or so and even then we are talking about the isolated Sami in Finland. Take your nazi pseudo science elsewhere!

"Negroids forged metal and stonehouses before "caucasiods" and "monogoloids"."
False.

First metal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper#History
Inventor = Caucasoid, population of fertile crescent, 8000 BC

First forging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron#History
Inventor = Caucasoid, population of fertile crescent, 1100 BC

Stone buildings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age#Stone_Age_material_culture
Inventor = homo-habilis, 200000 years ago probably more, evidence found in France probably not the first

Do I have to waste any more life on you or will you admit you are wrong? Or at least admit you are lied in these 2 points and never lie again.

One thing negroids did have before caucasiods and monogoloids is the HIV virus.

>>603
But the population of the firtle crescent were all black dumbass.

yeah yo and jesus was black too

yall are juts a bunch of mother fuckin hatin racists.  you know that the black man could have been more, but that the white people has opressed us since caveman days.

wikipedia was writen by white caucasoids

>>604
>>605
>>606
>>607
>>608

This entire education process would go alot smoother without you fucking no-life trolls would stop adding in your two cents like some kind of faggot bath-house spit bucket.

Onto >>603...

>>603

Been over this already and my source isn't that old internet stand-by "wikipedia". My sources tend to end in .edu.

Iron/Forging

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM

Still, early sub-Saharan Africans developed metallurgy at a very early stage, possibly even before other peoples. [/b]Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century).[/b] The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent.

Stone buildings.

http//www.es.flinders.edu.a/...

From the late 10th to the 15th century Zimbabwe was the centre of the great empire of the Karanga. The ruins that can be seen today originate from that period of wealth and achievements. People lived in Great Zimbabwe until the 17th century and possibly longer. The city fell into disuse thereafter. It was rediscovered by Europeans in 1867.

Great Zimbabwe extends over an area of 24 hectares. Much work is still needed to understand its civilization in detail. Elements of the city studied to date include a large fortification in a strategic hilltop location, with many rooms and a complicated array of passageways. In the valley below is an elliptical stone wall next to a tower. Extensive remnants of a drainage system run through the entire valley.

What's that? More?

That great empires existed before and at the time of arrival of the first Europeans is beyond doubt. Ruins of stone houses, walls and fortifications found across today's' Zimbabwe and Mozambique date from the 8th to the 15th century AD. The people had smelters for gold, which they traded along the Indian Ocean coast. Chinese porcelain found in their buildings testifies for their extensive trading contacts.

The Muslim kingdom of Mali flourished in West Africa from the 13th to the 16th century. Its wealth and advanced state of development can be judged from the pilgrimage to Mecca undertaken by its emperor Musa in 1324. On his trip through Mauritania, Algeria and Cairo he was accompanied by 60,000 men including 12,000 slaves. The infrastructure required to feed such a convoy during a long desert voyage is in itself an achievement of an advanced civilization. Everyone including the slaves was wearing the finest brocade and Persian silk. The emperor was on horseback, and 500 slaves walked in front, each carrying a staff with gold decorations. 80 camels at the end of the caravan each carried 300 pounds of gold. Musa's generosity with gold as presents caused the collapse of the Cairo gold market; it took more than a decade to recover.

Musa's voyage effectively put Africa on the world map. The Arab historians of the time could not praise Africa's wealth and culture high enough. Mali's first university was established under Musa's rule.

Unfortunately little is known about the scientific achievements of Africa even from its Islamic times, so systematic has been the destruction when the colonial powers arrived. The kingdom of Benin, known throughout western Africa as a centre of exquisite brass and bronze art, was ransacked and looted by the British colonial army in 1897. The loot, thousands of bronze plaques, is now on display in the British Museum in London. The government of Nigeria and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) are demanding its return to Africa.

MORE?

Here's another very extensive link on the subject:

http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum211/timelines/htimeline2.htm

Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question. 

Still questions from >>600 remain unanswered.

If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect needed for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their environment mattered then, if it doesn't matter *now*? Why would skin color make a difference?

Again: These unanswered questions liken to the overall lack of methodology. This is why you position is referred to as "psuedo science".

You Lose.

Continue?

09

08

07

06

05

>>610
"Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century)."

This is a blast furnace and you will find it isn't from an evil racist website.
http//www.visitcumbe/...

There is no evidence of this, it was fabricated on a whim. The Egyptians were the first to extract iron from near pure iron deposits, the Egyptians had black pharoahs in their last dynasty, therefore black people invented the blast furnace.

Of course there are some things they can't lie about.

"The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent."

So they invented the blast furnace in the 14th century and enterred the iron age in the 6th century. You'd think they'd spend 800 years in the iron age before they invented the blast furnace and not the other way round, though seeing as your website has an .edu at the end you must be right and black people are indeed like gods on earth capable of omnipotent feats.


Well done, you have defeated me in debate, I for one welcome my negroid masters and their amazing ability to defy the laws of physics to which I am bound. How should I serve thee?


Zimbabwe, proves nothing. Zimbabwe was no greater than the cities of anywhere else in the world 2000 years earlier. Except this wasn't 2000 years ago, this was during the time when armoured horsemen dominated the battlefields cathedrals, mosques temples and walled cities existed across the globe, when the Aztecs were building their great pyramids and developping cities which were larger than this (without iron and the wheel), the great wall of China had already been built and the emperor of China, the classical period, the romans, greeks and egyptians had already passed. I never said negroes were animals, just stupid.

>>612


Hasty retreating, rushed rationalizations, totally semantical and wrong. Can't put it any other way. If you feel this evidence is in question then prove it wrong. Find a scientist or historian that specifically says: "Oh, that's not true...Africa didn't do that." - I highly doubt these colleges made this shit up "on a whim".

It's not my fault if you want to turn a blind eye to the truth.  We can't treat your crippling ignorance until you admit that you were wrong.

And who said anything about blast furances? Are you trying to shift the argument? Because I didn't say anything about blast furnances. I said Iron. And eons ago I mentioned steel.

Zimbabwe proves everything. You (the opposition) said Africans didn't have stone buildings. They did. And one thing you have to understand: Why would sub-sahara Africa...hotter than most, if not all of the regions you listed...need insulated stone buildings? That'd be like living in an oven.

Give me a break here, guy. You asked for proof and this is as good as it gets. .edu carries more weight than wikipedia. It just does. Don't get all butthurt because you got caught in a lie. It's unseemingly when you fail and lose without grace.

"I never said negroes were animals, just stupid"

Suuuuuuuurre. Everything you say implies them being animalistic savages. Sorry...you're wrong. If you can find something saying all this shit didn't happen...then by allllllllll means. :)

The point is: You can't.

Now just answer the questions:

Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question.

Still questions from >>600 remain unanswered.

If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect needed for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their environment mattered then, if it doesn't matter *now*? Why would skin color make a difference?

>>613
Wouldn't it be easy to back up your argument with facts? You claim that some negroes discoverred how to extract iron from normal deposits before this was done in Turkey, the only think I've seen is a sentence in some site which is supposedly mnagical and wonderful becasue it has an .edu at the end of it.

As someone who disagrees with society's beliefs on race surely you must recognise I'm a little more skeptical than the average gullible redneck. Most people think Cleopatra was black because of the all black band "cleopatra comin atcha!" in the 90s, even though she was macedonian. I'm not denying any facts, the pharoahs of the 25th dynasty was black, nefertiti was black, I've said it because it is true and I've seen the facts. However when nefertiti seems to be the only pharoah people here about and posters and fliers appear all over schools and colleges with images of nerfertiti and this particular dynasty and find people like you literally all over the internet, I begin to get a little suspicous. However I won't say that Ancient Egypt was black, or that blacks discoverred how to smelt iron until I've seen more evidence than the whim of some afrocentrist who has control over the affirmative action university of washington and decided to slip in 1 false sentence amongst the truth and hope no one notices.

>>614
hear*

I don't disagree with your point so im not going to be a grammar nazi about it lol

>>614

Your argument is still a semantical one. I have basically pointed out the same thing about the "eurocentric" (chuckle) account of history. But at least I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. You're not really here to learn anything- you just want your world view to win. I can provide less "afrocentric" (chuckle) evidence if you like:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~tloos/Africa/gz.html
This link provides pictures. Indiana University.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/history/giblinhistory.html
University of Iowa

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/lecture_nonwest_world.htm
University of North Carlina at Pembroke

http://www.yale.edu/ycias/african/images/slideshow/12.htm
http://www.yale.edu/ycias/african/images/slideshow/21.jpg
http://www.yale.edu/ycias/african/images/slideshow/30.jpg
Pictures of Stone Ruins taken from Yale.

You didn't even click the links, did you? Listen, there's skeptical and then there's refusal of fact. And yes these are the facts.

If you have a problem with history then maybe you take it up with the historian or the colleges themselves! We could here all year! How much more proof do you need? Do I literally have to fly you to Africa? Are you waiting for some great white God to drop out of the sky and nod his head in approval? Why are you even here? You're not interested in the truth, clearly.

It pains me run across people like you because all you have to do write "Stone Houses, African Civilization" into google and you will return with a wealth of information. How can you say something isn't true when you obviously haven't even bothered to look at *once* piece of evidence?

"Gullible redneck" isn't a character that we run arcoss in discussion on African Civilization. We usually run across redneck like you- who won't acknowledge the truth no matter how much credible evidence is presented before them.

Now just answer the questions:

Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question.

Still questions from >>600 remain unanswered.

If you really believe genetics was so basic to human intellect and therefore so unchangable then why is it so hard to believe that the people that left Africa already possessed the intellect needed for the advancements we've seen as a human race? Why would have their environment mattered then, if it doesn't matter *now*? Why would skin color make a difference?

618 GET

619GET

Anti-chan's debate style has changed a lot through this debate.  I think he's asking one of his college professors for help.

>>620
It used to be emotional overstating of the facts, as well as dumbass strawmen (such as asserting that debaters felt bad when they found out africans did this and that), now it's handing out tons of links.  Yes, I believe someone is sharing their bookmark collection with him.

>>617
"Now this evidence begs many questions. Are these all lies? Am I supposed trust wikipedia or colleges? Again am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? Just answer the question."
Well, I bet we could find plenty of URLs from .edu domains to support what was written on wikipedia, for sure.  But you also have to admit that a LOT of stuff in academia is treated as fact based on the emotions of the scientists.  For example, researchers have found very compelling evidence that cro-magnons didn't interbreed with neanderthals, but in fact, in many cases, ate them.  They've found evidence that they were more distantly related to each other then each of them was related to chimpanzees.  In many textbooks now they outright decry that evidence as "discredited" (without specifying what, if anything, discredits it) because they for some reason want to believe that humans and neanderthals merged.  They set up taboos on the subject, and now, any reference to cannibalism with regard to neanderthals is for many people swept under the rug, and anyone who wants to pursue this avenue of thought may find it very difficult to get funding.

But this doesn't have the emotional impact on the general populace that the subject of this debate does.  So, therefore, the media is able to broadcast specials detailing these scientists' (I forget their names at the moment) findings without backlash from the general public.  The general public has no reason to care what turns out to be true or not, so they just watch it and take what they want to from it.

However, you know what would happen if someone put out a special showing that under the same conditions, raised in similar families in similar towns (anti-chan stop acting like this is an unfair way to lay things out, you're just destroying your argument) certain groups of people turn out different ways (they can do this study now, I'm sure that there are enough black babies and ashkenazi jew babies adopted into white WASP homes to do a study on this with a large enough sample to come to a conclusion).  That's right, they're be shuned out of ever working in anything academic or cimematic ever again, their documentary would be destroyed, their data burned, and they would sued back to burning hell for defamation and discrimination, and would be called ignorant regardless of whether their shit was true or not.

You think that the world is rewriting history to ostracize blacks, when really that couldn't be farther from the truth.

>>622
In other words, no, I don't have any reason to trust colleges more than wikipedia.

>>620
>>621

Bullshit. All you have to do is exactly as I said: type "Stone Houses, African Civilization" into google. Type "Sub Haharan African Civilizations" into google as well. You guys are the ones that applied some silly little assumption about my personality to me. My debating style hasn't changed in the slightest. But why should you believe me? You haven't listen or tried to believe anything I've said from the beginning. 

>>622

If you can find those links, then you should've used them before. Better yet, get them out now. Though what good will anything other than definitive proof that those college links are wrong we do for your argument is beyond me. Whatever you grab still won't debunk my proof in the slightest. It would be a repeat of what was said in wikipedia.

As for the cannibalism/neanderthals thing...honestly: Who cares? Right now it seems like saying Africa did something before anybody else is the bigger or more prevailant tabboo as it shatters old beliefs and charactactures (yes, I said it) of Africans and their history. Similar to how we eventually found out that Columbus didn't discover American and that the earth wasn't flat. These are facts and you aren't going to dash them to the fucking rocks by using every white supremist's old stand-by "Affrimative action." The idea that these facts alone, in their most absolute and purest form are "Afrocentric" is something you're applying to have a negative connotation. Is that thinly vieled bigotry- or are you just afriad to admit to yourself that you didn't know as much as you thought? It can only be one or the other.

As for the rest...again I have to say: So what? This still doesn't go about debunking one of my facts. The very notion that you could do such a study and arrive at a certain result is the very thrust of my argument. The information derived from such a study would be co-realative [i]at best.[/b] Sure, you could do that study----Say that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically smarter than the whole damn world for all I care. But don't make the whole study out to mean something that it doesn't. The study itself wouldn't apply a complete methodology as to why those results occurred. That approach would be similar to how the Bell Curve guy went about their reasearch. It's like: "Ok, we'll just ignore environmental factors and put this out saying it's truth"

*laugh* The term: Truthiness comes to mind.

And I don't think "the world" is doing anything. I think it's a similar situation to what we had about the earth being flat and the universe rotating around. You've got a group of people who want to enforce and continue long held traditions of belief that science and methodology have proven to be false. If all of this was truly wrong- you'd have more to throw back at me then claims of Afrocentricity and claims of Affrimative action.

I have been attacked with ad hominems by you and the opposition since the beginning.

On the contrary. You lashed out at everyone, even those who made posts without a single attack in them. What do you think the result of that behaviour was?

There have been several attempts in the thread to engage in something resembling civil discouver, but you verbally blugeoned them until they tired and left.

*discourse

>>625

I never attacked until provoked. So you either prove what you say is true, or this is an ad hominem in and of itself.

>>469 onwards, for example. Compare what you and your target were saying. Other than a couple trolls sniping from the peanut gallery, you were the only person swearing.

>>628

Specifics please.

And totally ignoring all the shit that was said to me by "my target" before >>469, I see?

...

Nice. Real nice.

Him: http//www.world4ch.org/...
You: http//www.world4ch.org/...

You can't see the difference here?

Furthermore, I don't see anyone before >>468 who writes quite like that. A few posts come close, but none were that "cold" (I can't think of a better word).

But let's assume they really were one of the people insulting you, I do not see how that excuses your behavior after >>468, when they posted in a decent fashion.

Oh, wait, what am I saying?!

THIS IS 4CHAN!!1!

Right. Never mind. Move along.

>>630

So all of this is subjective? Because I can write well and the others fail...I'm the worse of the bunch? And you're right it is 4chan, but if you go back to the beginning and onwards it's clear that I treat others the way they treated me: With contempt.

But how this voids any of the facts I've presented here is still in question.

Being hyperaggressive is writing well? You sure have a good opinion of yourself.

Yeah, it doesn't void anything you said, but nobody sane wants to debate you either. If you like arguing with idiots, you found a fine way to ensure it.

Again "hyperaggressive" is subjective solely based on the words used. You can't get upset because my well honed prose likens to a nuclear powered missle sword that shoots lazers. And theirs is the equivalent of a rat turd on a stick.

Of course my insults are going to seem hyperagressive in that light.

...but they still started it. ;P

If you're going to censure one person, censure all of 'em, I say. But whatever. My argument still wins.

>>634
Especially when you change it about four times.

Anyway, if you would have thought about it long enough, you'd have gotten my point with the whole neanderthal thing. It shows that people will deny that data even exists based on their own emotion, and that this happens a whole lot in academia where everyone is supposedly professional thinkers.  If you'd noticed, all your links were from lecture notes for classes ON african civilization, so they'd of course have a vested interest in pointing out the virtures of african civilization...  I mean, it's what you took the class for, right?

And why you won't even answer a fucking hypothetical is beyond me.  When you respond to a question posed solely for the sake of argument, and one that exists in happy fairy land where environment can really be exactly the same, and eliminates all other factors with your "THAT CAN'T REALLY HAPPEN" it seems very obtuse.  It's a thought experiment, and if you'd really believed it you'd answer in the affirmative.  Another way out for you would be to say that yes, there would be marginal differences, but not enough to in any way affect their ability to produce and contribute to society. Both of those would save your argument.  But you didn't do that, and I really can't figure out why.

>>635

My argument hasn't changed. If you think it has: Provide proof. And please...do give us specifics. :)

Neanderthal's are not homosapien. Therefore: Irrelevant rubbish. But regarding your point: Yeah, people will deny data exists based on their own emotion. I know this because you're doing it right now.

I've never *seen* a white guy create the first combustion engine or the first *anything*, but until I find contensious data/empirical evidence that states otherwise...I give it the benefit of the doubt.

Until you can bring something to the debate that at the very least directly contends with what I've said then you're doing nothing but hanging onto a lofty dream-like concept of the truth. Click the links. *Look* at the pictures. *Read* the words. I know you haven't even looked because you refer to them as "lectures". Haha...OOOOooookkkk...the information is presented there in the same way it would be presented on wikipedia.

By the way?

State University's v.s wikipedia: State uni's win. Once you get to college maybe you'll understand that they just don't throw whatever they want up into the curriculum. It's peer reviewed.

Yale is an educational institution.

Wikipedia is the 4chan.org of online encyclopedias.

As for your last bit, I already told you why, baby bird. Did you not read >>580? Did you just ignore it and hope I wouldn't remember that I answered this question already? I can repost it if you want, but I'd rather treat you with some semblance of dignity.

>>636
Wikipedia is peer reviewed.  It still doesn't change the fact that they can say anything they want to if they want to.  Plus anyone who disagrees with them is labelled a racist or an ignoramous or whatever.

How obtuse that you mention that neanderthals aren't homosapien...  Did I ever even imply that neanderthals themselves had anything to do with this debate?  NO.  I was using their situation to illustrate a point, that universities aren't exactly the great bastion of truth in our society. 

And most of the links you posted that weren't just "look at the pictures we took of this beautiful site!" were lecture notes, dude.  I don't consider pictures particularly relevant to this discusssion.  Sure, there are ruins there, but we don't know anything about them, and they had no written language and there exists no reliable account of what happened. 

And no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that the hittites of the mesopotamian area were the first people to use iron almost 1500 years before any of the information you've presented.  Here's a link since you seem to hold .edu shit in such high regard:

http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hittite.htm

They were working with iron, had a written language, and all that shit millinea before the information presented in your dumbass "iron age of africa" link.

All your arguments are failure wrapped up in hype.  And all this "oh you're not in college like I am! LOLXORS" shows your fucking immaturity, as well as labels you as being a certain age (why you don't realize that is beyond me).  Fucking grow up, damn.  You should really read http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1138390786/

and dude, >>580 was a miserable attempt at building a strawman, and did more to weaken your stance than anything else.  Because, up until now, you've said that nature can not account for everything that's happening to a certain minority, when in >>580 you just made it sound like you almost believe that nature IS playing a role. 

Now, lets add this all up; african society was never all that great in comparison with anything the indo-europeans (caucasoids, the type that exist between india and the nordic countries) or asians came up with, and many of the things that HAVE been attributed to them have been shown to be outright lies or misleading hype (reference hittite iron working).  Only twice did pure negroids (I can already see you're going to start in with the whole LOLXORS HOW DO YOU DEFINE A RACE!!!! thing right now) ever come up with a written language on their own, and this was only around the year 0AD in west africa, when written languages were already commonplace. 

And then you have during colonial times.  Why were african civilizations so easy to destroy and subjugate?  Europe had dealt with constant invaders on it's own territory, yet still they were able to get their shit together and GO CONQUER SOMEONE ELSE. 

Now in america and africa proper, you can see the trend continuing.  While most other enslaved races (the mexicans, the chinese) managed to get their shit together and give whitey a run for his money, the ignorant ass niggers haven't done anything.

I'm not saying the trend is unbreakable, and that niggers are useless sacks of flesh destined for the scrap bin, but culture and nature are constantly reinforcing each other.

BTW, who on a college campus nowadays calls someone something so faggotry as "baby bird" and doesn't expect get an ass whooping for it? :P

My argument hasn't changed. If you think it has: Provide proof. And please...do give us specifics. :)

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RACE ring a bell?

Honestly I'm tired of this debate.  sage it back to hell.