What is it with Black men and White women?

What happened to Black pride? Get your head our of your ass and date a nice African-American women, son.

Black pride went out with the Panthers.  Remnants of the Panthers just went legit and supported the same socio-economic system that ensures Blacky stays down.  Hence, we end up with the Black yearning for Whiteflesh, driven either by true sexual desire or the more perverse desire to punish.

>>2
>>1
 
None of this shit matters. There are black and whites who just flat out fall in love, there's nothing you can do about it. The only reason white nationalist and other racists are crying about black pride is because they don't want black dudes banging "their women".

Here's a shocker: One of many reasons it was so easy for white women to AUTOMATICALLY start fucking other races was because they didn't feel like they should be just as "OWNED" by white men.

People will fuck who or whatever they want, to even whine out about in anyway is fascist.

>>3

Your theory has a hole in it... white men don't go berserk to fuck a gorilla nosed nigger woman.

>>3
Was I whining?  No, I was just noting that Black+White unions tend to have larger social problems associated with them.  Such couples don't need to seek my approval, and I don't disapprove in the first place.  People who enter into relationships for the wrong reasons are just going to suffer and that's called matriculating from the School of Hard Knocks.

>>4

Yes, they do. It's more likely than you think. All you have to do is look at who the founding fathers ended up fucking. For more proof, look into the genetics of blacks (or any minority) and there's a white guy in the genepool somewhere and same goes for vise-versa. "Pure Races" are a fallacy for this reason.

>>5

They only have social problems associated with them because of fags like >>4 and people like you sensationalizing something ("race" mixing) that's been common place since people discovered each other. Lots of people enter into lots of different kinds of relationships for a multitude of 'wrong reasons', so what? Sounds like you're not speaking from experience. And I can tell you first hand that those kind of larger social problems don't affect 'race-mixers' because they don't believe in that kind of faggotry in the first place. To them: Everybody else can fuck off.

>>6
I'm just discussing the topic.  If doing so is "sensationalizing" then it only remains for us to question how we can ever discuss anything in the first place.

If you'd return to reading what I wrote, I clearly stated that there are social problems WITHIN THE COUPLE, like when one partner starts the relationship to have a trophy or victim instead of a true partner.

>>3
If they go out and let any non-white bang them just to "prove" they are not owned by white men they are retarded and I am glad their genes will not be spread to future white generations.

Libertarians would privatise sperm banks and embryo screening so people can ensure their children have healthy genesspoilerin a spoiler!the need for racism will be extinguished and the world will be a better place.

>>7

I understand that you think these could be problems "WITHIN THE COUPLE" but you are wrong because people like that don't become "COUPLES" with someone outside of their race in the first fucking place.

They fetishize and it becomes solely a sexual act. The type of person that would be in a relationship with someone outside of their race (A) wouldn't do something like that because they aren't race obsessed in the first place and (B) can easily pick up on when someone is trying to do that to them.  We're not talking about casual sex, here.

Your scenario doesn't fucking exist and the only reason you think it does is out of ignorance. Step away from the bullhorn for a second and realize you're arguing about something you know fuck all about.

>>8

But by feeling the way you do about it, you're just proving their point. The only reason you don't want whites with non-white is because your perceived ownership of that person. You don't have a right to tell people who they can or can't fuck unless it's your child or something.

Plus, this doesn't apply to white women, this applies to ALL WOMEN (AND MEN) and other than LOVE this is how race mixing has gone on. My point is that this type of thing goes on naturally regardless if there is a social mechanism for it or against it.

>>10
That can't be true as I just said I am glad their genes are leaving the white race.

>>11

That's ultimately true as that choice is purely subjective and has nothing to do with the overall "intelligence" of "the whites" and let's not forget that you've already implied that you'd like it if whites would stick with their own genetic stock. If you didn't feel that way, you wouldn't feel "ownership" of white genes and it wouldn't matter who's genes went where.

>>12
2that choice is purely subjective"

As you have admitted and cannot deny, their decision is subjective not objective, this means they have low objective reasonning skills and thus their genes are undesirable.

This "you've already implied", sir, is subjective. I could say you are pathologically desperate for me to fit into your dumb hillbilly "dey takin our wimminz" stereotype as you are fearful of the facts, but that would be a mere supposition which by my standards is not a fact.

Excuse me for following the continuity of the thread. GB2/ >>1, >>4, >>8, >>11 - Assuming that ANY of these posts are yours then it's fairly safe to arrive to the objective conclusion that: (A) You have invested interest in the sexual habits of different races. And (B) Despite absolutely zero proof (and proof to the contrary) you feel that if a certain race fucks someone outside of their (or your) race that it's a sign of poor genetic stock or that it may be detrimental to the [previously superior] genetic make-up.

Your feelings are evident by thinking of "the white genepool" as solely yours to govern. Couple that with your constant hinting that blacks are genetically inferior and that puts you in the "dey takin our wimmiz" category whether you can comprehend that or not.

Summing up, fagboy: If you didn't have "standards" in the first place, inaccurate and illogical standards at that, then you wouldn't fit the stereotype. You even thinking about this, one way or the other is your omission of fail. Live with it, like you no doubt live with the drunken sexual abuse from your step-dad "Grand Wizard Janky".

>>10
When the Black man thinks of his White GF as a trophy, that comes from within him.  Then the White woman thinks that her Black BF will piss off her father, that comes from within her.

What, are you a fucking retard or something?  THOSE interior forces were what I was talking about.  As for exterior forces ... well, I can't do anything about social perceptions of interracial couples, and neither can you.  If there's any bullhornian activity here, it's YOURS.

>>14
I'm not racist, I'm a meritocrat. If a black person was genetically superior I'd gladly let him impregnate my daughter.

>>15

You're still wrong and you're still using your assflaps for a soapbox. The perception you have (within you) of that very same black man or white women is an  exterior force you place on their relationship. It's extremely, extremely, very fucking extremely rare that two people in a racially-mixed relationship think like that. That's the reason they're in a racially-mixed relationship in the first fucking place! Because they aren't racially minded!  

Furthermore, you have no fucking proof, no statistics, no anything what-so-fucking-ever that backs up your claim. "THOSE" interior forces are a figment of your racially possessed mind. And- since you are the cause- of course you can do something about those exterior forces, fuckwit. You can stop making backwards-asshat assumptions about the dynamics of a kind of relationship that you have NEVER been in.

dey bee takin our wimmiz!!!!!!!!

>>16

That....changes nothing. Take what I said in >>14 and replace race with "human" and you get the same effect. Eugenics is fucking stupid.

>>19
Eugenics is fucking stupid.

Then go ahead and date a fat, ugly, obese motherfucker. Since Eugenics is bad an' all.

>>17
Sorry, I'm not buyin' it.  People use each other all the time.  The examples I gave were standard issue.  At a certain point, you'd have to admit that you just don't speak for interracial couples and can't reach those sorts of conclusions.  Sure, we can theorize better forces, but there are ALWAYS internal forces that are detrimental.

Look, take the following advice in the best way possible:  You've been brainwashed by Liberals into thinking that racism is always external and it's all society's fault.  Consequently, you demonize all such conversations and simply can't hear of the possibility that some Black fellow is abusing his White girlfriend.  Sadly, it happens frequently enough in the Real World.  Liberals are absolutely FAMOUS for letting people off the hook for responsibility for their own behavior.  You're just repeating the same, unfounded philosophy when you dare to criticize my frankly correct viewpoint.

Your Liberal professors in that LibArts college you attended only represent a tiny piece of the American mind.  We use the term "ivory tower" for a good reason; it's to testify to the insularity of the viewpoints of the eggheads who occupy such institutions.  Don't let yourself get sucked into PC and other provably wrong thinking.  Look for yourself and understand that at the core, people are complete shits and will abuse anyone for any random reason.

>>21

So are you telling me that whenever you see an inter-racial couple walking down the street you assume that they're together to piss each other parents off or for one to use the other as a trophy? Love, Respect and mutual understanding doesn't come first right? Not even an intense sexual connection? It just *HAS* to be about stickin' it to the 'rents or to the man?

My girlfriend and I have no problem with fucktards like you thinking that way because your attitude is actually MORE common than those who simply think: "you should stick with your race". The sad part is that they, just like you, claim that they aren't racist or bigots just before bringing up some left field shit about "Black fellows abusing their white girlfriends" (LULZ!)- as if abusive relationships have EVERYTHING to do with race!

No. The only thing that matters here is that you have no objective or even anecdotal foundation for your argument. All you have is some lame generalization you pulled out of your ass that can apply to ANY couple, be it race, sex, gender or income bracket. And that's alright. You can feel right without actually being right.

But no matter what, you're going to have to deal with the fact that your baseless assumption is an external factor you place upon others. I'd love to take what you have to say in consideration but I've been there done that. I've got personal experience and the experience of other inter-racial couples telling me otherwise. The truth is, usually inter-racial couples don't even think about race as a factor what-so-ever in their relationship until someone like you starts flapping his/her gums about something he either (A) has no experience with or (B) has deep seeded issues of his own to deal with.

As for the rest of the liberal bullshit...I'm not going to reply to it because...well...it doesn't apply to me and I thought maybe you might have been talking to someone else. I'm just going to leave you with this: What Lord Riodrain said about you is 100% true. You sound like a teenage dumbfuck regardless if you actually know what you're talking about or not. And resorting to calling everyone "brainwashed by egghead liberals" or "brainwashed by heartless rich conservatives" makes just as dumb as those stormfront faggots or those socialist hippy fuckers that populate this board. 

>>22
No, I don't assume that, and that's exactly the attitude that you have that is so filled with FAIL.  I'm just speculating that there's a trend, and then I speculated on the reasons.  I'm sure there are some perfectly stable and happy interracial couples.  The anecdotal evidence indicates they are rare.  Granted, lots of couples aren't that happy with each other in the first place, but that doesn't deny the possible validity of the speculated reasons which involve race.

Your attitude is one that was programmed into you by Hyperliberalism.  You've been trained into reacting with rather insane anger against any discussion of racial note.  You can't even admit that interracial couples could be formed for racial reasons, and that means largely bad ones.  If you truly want people to be color blind (as I was taught to be), then you'd expect yourself to condemn interracial couples who "did it" for racial reasons.  But no, no, you'd rather just put a stop to discussing it all in the first place.

You're a Liberal puppet.  Someone discusses race, and you jump all over them per the commands of your masters.  Think for yourself for a change.  I really don't want to get into ad hominem, but your attitude is really extreme and compels me to go in that direction.

>>19
Yes it does. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that I am a racist, which I'm not as if a black man has superior genes and his offspring with my daughter would be healthy and intelligent and capable of producing healthy intelligent offspring I see no reason why they should not get married and have kids.

Eugenics didn't work under nazism as they were tyrants with a warped agenda. Now that the uman genome project is complete eugenics has become a reputable science and can be used to make the world a better place. What's wrong with curing type 1 diabetes, cystic fibrosis, lactose intolerance and sickle cell anaemia? It ends sufferring so if you oppose it it's the equivalent of infecting future generations with these diseases which is grievous bodily damage. Do you really want to be responsible for causing grievous bodily damage to millions of people? Who is the real mass murderer here?

I once asked a black friend of mine. Why does he and most other black men prefer white women? His reply "Well white women... they have nice soft hair, smooth skin, and most of em don't smash you over the head with a frying pan when they think you cheating." So there is the answer coming from a black man himself who dates white women.

>>People will fuck who pr whatever they want
>>3

This include 11-16 year old girls. :3

>>26
What if they don't want to?

>>23

Blah, Blah, Blah, you should've just copy-pasted what you wrote before. All that anyone with a mind built on a foundation of reason cares about is that you're speculating about inter-racial relationship when you have never been in one and frankly, you don't know anybody in one. You're stupid and easily manipulated. If anyone's been brainwashed. It's you.

For Example: The Anecdotal evidence part was not me meeting half way with your theory of 'assumed abuse'. But instead seeing how far you'd be willing to take an argument where you absolutely refuse to provide anything but "a gut feeling" for the base of your arguments.

You did half of the work for me, by admitting that your argument is based (Like EUGENICS, on psuedoscience and heresy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

You can flail your hands about and shout nonsense about hyperliberalism or whatever 'til you're blue in the face. It's just another logical fallacy of yours. I can just as easily say that you've been brainwashed by conservatives via...hahaha..."anecdotal evidence" to see an inter-racial couple as something 100% different than any other couple. When you don't treat them on equal standing that's prejudice no matter who you start calling a liberal. If you can't see how your assumption is external force on them then you're retarded. The only thing internal about their relationship is that it exists in the first place!

And frankly it's not a coincidence that in discussing inter-racial relationships- a subject in which you are not well versed- that the first thing that comes into your mind is 'black men abusing white women'. Of course I'm going to seem "aggressive" when you're being challenged over and over with no suitable reply. I think unless you've got some cold hard facts about this, then you should probably step back and take a breather. This is done.

>>28
Once again, your Hyperliberal indoctrination doesn't allow you to admit that interracial couples could have racial reasons for getting together.  You literally can't even see it, since you've taken the doctrine so completely into your mind.

All you have to do to recover your credibility here (which you lost completely for the abovementioned reason) is to admit that interracial couples could have racial reasons for choosing each other.  C'mon, that's not so hard, since it's true.  Just admit it.

>>29

You're a fucking idiot, RedCream. Go back and cite where I precisely said "inter-racial couples could never have racial reasons for getting together". 

OH SHI-

It's not there! It's not fucking there! That's the most hilarious thing about all of this shit. You're doing what you always do and you're arguing past the point completely. All I'm saying is that a vast majority are NOT getting together for the reason you think BECAUSE by virtue of the fact that they're in a inter-racial relationship makes them less likely to percieve race as a factor in choosing a mate...that's just how it goes.

Listen kid, the only credibility issue here got spotlighted the moment you thought someone was taking your "anecdotal evidence" seriously. You've been living in FailCity for the last 8 or 9 posts, your inability to see this is your omission of immense fail. Enjoy, fag.

>>30
OK.  Then I'm not wrong in the first place, and it remains mysterious why you say anything against what I said ... except for that Hyperliberalist indoctrination I spoke of before.

Anyway, you've faced the fact that interracial couples could have racial problems, and it's hardly a tiny minority of them.  Having accepted this truth, we can move on.  (But you can't, really, since Hyperliberalism demands that any noting of racial differences must be demonized and hounded out of public discourse.)

>>31

"Hyperliberalist indoctrination" sounds like something you overheard on Crossfire. It's possible in my case, but I seriously doubt any such indoctrination has gone on. Reason being is that I simply believe (and have repeatedly stated) that: Discussion of race, more specifically, inter-racial relationships should not always entail a discussion of "racial differences" existent or fabricated. Just because we're talking about a black person and a white person doesn't automatically mean we need to discuss "black vs white" person. Which is ironically enough, what you've accused me of. 

Doing so, constantly is how we (and by "we", I mean "you") end up keeping such convenient and objectively unprovable bigotries such as "Everybody knows Black dudes beat their white girlfriends...because they're white".

If thinking that's going too fucking far and is too much of a knee-jerk reaction in a debate where you've already admitted to knowing very little about the subject matter- makes me a Hyperliberalist. Then you are most certainly a Neo-conservative white supremacist. So, how big is that "IF", now?

>>32
As long as you have admitted that interracial couples can be together for racial reasons, then my point is made.  The rest of the matter is just you danging on the end of a Spartan spear like some effete Persian, loudly complaining about how your culture is superior, blah blah blah.  The Persian-esque Hyperliberals can't admit they are embroiled in a particularly insular (and in fact, CRIPPLING) philosophy.

There's a vast difference between being socially Liberal (i.e. like me) and being a stupid fucking Hyperliberal (i.e. like you).  Hyperliberals are so drunk on the power of social Liberalism that they have long confused reasoned debate with government force.  Starry-eyed by the idea of a socially-Liberal utopia, they simply become so jaw-droppingly stupid that they actually believe that such a utopia is possible to have.  The end produce is stupid fucking shit like "hate crimes" and "gun bans".

gb2europe

>>33

You're still talking past me and seems that you're doing so as to not confront my point. Respond to the underlined or it's an omission of failure. I've broken it down into bite size piece for you this time, so try to stay on topic. I'll keep bumping and returning to this thread as long as you continue to dodge all the hide behind this hyperliberalism shit so that you don't have to own up to the retarded statements you've made.

1. Reason being is that I simply believe (and have repeatedly stated) that: Discussion of race, more specifically, inter-racial relationships should not always entail a discussion of "racial differences" existent or fabricated. <=== In this case objectively unprovable on your part and FABRICATED.

2. Just because we're talking about a black person and a white person doesn't automatically mean we need to discuss "black vs white" person. Which is ironically enough, what you've accused me of.

3. Doing so, constantly is how we (and by "we", I mean "you") end up keeping such convenient and objectively unprovable bigotries such as "Everybody knows Black dudes beat their white girlfriends...because they're white". <=== How is this not prejudice?

>>33
>>X
[space]
bla bla bla-chan may be a hyper-liberal but at least after lengthy criticism it eventually drops it's prejudices and semantic quibbles and starts to make sense, you never make sense from beginning to end and never shut the fuck up. Even if no one talks to you, you talk to yourself about homosexuality and jews which I have seen clearly on other threads.

It's obvious when you read >>2, >>5, >>15, >>21 and >>33 that RedCream has some race issues or is possessed by issues of race. He covers it up by railing against "Hyperliberal Utopia" but when you isolate his supporting statements, his real beliefs are put on display.

>>2
"Hence, we end up with the Black yearning for Whiteflesh, driven either by true sexual desire or the more perverse desire to punish."

-He thinks that Blacks "yearn" for Whites to dole out "Punishment". He considers sexual desire in the case of a black man wanting a white women to be "special" or different from any other sexual desire.

>>5
"No, I was just noting that Black+White unions tend to have larger social problems associated with them."

-But why? And why hasn't he provided proof for this statement? RedCream aimlessly gropes for an answer in the next post.

>>15
"When the Black man thinks of his White GF as a trophy, that comes from within him.  Then the White woman thinks that her Black BF will piss off her father, that comes from within her."

---This makes no sense. The white girlfriend is considered a trophy because of external racially-motivated factor placing white females above other races. A black boyfriend only pisses off a father who doesn't like blacks. Why wouldn't a father want his daughter to date a black man? RedCream once again provides the answer.


>>21
"Consequently, you demonize all such conversations and simply can't hear of the possibility that some Black fellow is abusing his White girlfriend.

---He states this without one iota of evidence. When someone suggests that his evidence is anecdotal, he falls for the trap and admits that as the source for his information. Anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy in any debate, not just one about race.


>>33
"The rest of the matter is just you danging on the end of a Spartan spear like some effete Persian, loudly complaining about how your culture is superior, blah blah blah."

----And in the end he resorts to something that sounds like it's right out of the mouth from someone on stormfront.

RedCream's stance is basically that because someone pointed all this out, that makes them Hyperliberal and lusting after some socialist utopia. Meanwhile, the opposition only stated a truism that the reason there are inter-racial relationships is because these people don't consider race to be a factor. White, black, asian, latino, it doesn't make a difference.

It never dawns on them that: "Blacks beat their white girlfriends because their white." - The only people who take such 'anecdotal evidence' to heart are ignorant bigots...or just plain old retards. As far as abuse goes: A man who beats a women will beat a women of any race no matter what race that man is.

RedCream destroyed himself in this thread.

>>36
No one gives a shit about RedCream, if this were anonymous you would be making an interesting point since you would have rationalised those "hunches" we have about people based on those little cliches they use we've seen somewhere before and whatnot. Though in this instance you have merely pointed out the already well known fact that RedCream is batshit insane.

Of note: RedCream stated he enjoys sucking black cocks in quite a graphic manner in /lounge/. I hope this helps shed light on the rich psychological tapestry that makes up this man's fucked up mind.

>>34
I'm not here to respond to your narrow, Hyperliberal view.  My point was that interracial couples tend to have racial problems and that Hyperliberalism stops people from even considering that's the case.  The Hyperliberals insist that any problem within such couples is the fault of "the rest of us" ... which is as exactly FUCKED-UP-WRONG as the Hyperconservatives thinking gay marriages somehow affect their own, heterosexual marriages.

You already admitted that interracial couples could have racial reasons for their relationship.  Past that point, it's just a matter of opinion and anecdotes about HOW MANY of those couples have such problems.

In case you weren't keeping track, I just PWNED you again.  At least have the grace to bow out with dignity.

>>37 wow u r dumd lemme add u in myspaes

let me just say, as a person who's watched this go on for some time, there's an equal amount of validity in both arguements. However, I think Redcream is trying to say while your point is valid, it doesn't mean that your reason are the only ones. I myself am in an interracial relationship, and while I have my reasons, it is undeniable that other people have put themselves in the same situation as me for much different reasons, several of which redcream had mentioned. He's not being racist, he's a realist.

geh, forgot to quotd >>36 XP

>>38

RedCream, mai boi...Kevin Pierria uses "PWNED" and the only thing he's got "PWNED" is the market on mediocrity and shit. You see, regardless of what reasons inter-racial couples might hypothetically enter into a relationship...it is still wrong to assume problems such as abuse stem solely from race and this assumption that it does stems from pre-existent racial thought.

The reasons for a black man thinking of a white woman as a trophy or a white women dating a black man to piss her father off are only true because they are culturally and socially expressed. It's not "FROM WITHIN" when you're responding to the prevalent opinions of a racially obsessive culture who have based those opinions on the the very thing you've based yours on - fallacy and ignorance.

It's cute that you keep pretending your view runs opposed to the negative impact of Hyperliberalism's inability to discuss race. But you are just as bad as they are because of your inability to discuss it without resorting to anecdotes, fallacy and as clearly shown in >>36 - thinly veiled bigotry.

>>40

That would be fine if that were the case, but as >>36 has already pointed out. RedCream didn't start in on the Hyperliberalism stuff until >>21. AFTER he had been called out to support his view with something other than heresy and anecdotes. Considering that he has refused to address this is highly dubious and has all the argumentative evasiveness of a Dick Cheney interview. 

The only way you can still think the way you do about his view point is if you completely ignore posts >>2, >>5, >>15, >>21. This would a different matter entirely if it weren't for those statements. Sorry, but it seems you're on the Failboat right along with RedCream and unfortunately for you it's sinking under the weight of it's own semen and compacted feces.

>>42 haha, okay, if thats what you say. However, I was not supporting his beliefs, it just seemed like I should point out a few things. Personally, I think interracial relationships can be great, but often are, for one reason or another, taken the wrong way. It depends on the social and familiar impact, and how said couple reacts. In the case that said couple can predict what may happen with external affairs, then you have the cases where one or both parties will initiate a relationship for the desired

>>43 (cont.) effect. In other cases, they could have their own selfish cause, such as the trophy white girl mentioned earlier That does not, however, mean that ALL interracial couples are there for the wrong reason. Simply put, there's another side of the duct tape that runs paralell to the one that sticks.

>>42
Like I said before, as long as you admit that interracial couples could have racial reasons for getting together, then my point is made.  Of course, anecdotally, I hardly doubted that in the first place.  The difference being promoted by Your Dumb Side is that -- as I predicted -- Hyperliberalism demands that you place any and all blame for their foibles upon SOCIETY, to wit:

"The reasons for a black man thinking of a white woman as a trophy or a white women dating a black man to piss her father off are only true because they are culturally and socially expressed."

Game.  Set.  Match.  While laboring under this Hyperliberal indoctrination, you're not even qualified to talk about any racial issue whatsoever.  Conservatism (at least the old type, not the crap version being used in the White House) says that a man is responsible for his behavior.  All this "from within" is aligned with that self-evident assertion.

You might take a piece of well-intended advice.  Your chubby adulterer is NO LONGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  Your union-fellating Dems are hardly in control of the Congress.  Hence, your default assumption of support for Hyperliberalism is simply NOT THERE anymore.  Hence, using terms like "thinly veiled bigotry" which seems to work on college campuses to keep them Liberal, has no power in public anymore.  The entire nation oozed rightward while your beloved Liberal god was getting a blowjob from a Jewslut in the Oval Orifice.  Racial issues will be addressed without being demonized by Liberals.  If you don't like that, move to fuckin' Germany, since it appears that a balanced America is no longer your homeland.

>>45

It doesn't matter how many times you keep moving the goal posts back, you're going to have to confront your statements. The part about your bigotry being thinly veiled was me being polite.

In truth, there was nothing thinly veiled about "everybody knows about the black guy beating up his white girlfriend". My argument has nothing to do with if couples could have racial reasons for being a couple and had EVERYTHING to do with your supposition that black guys get white girlfriend because they are an easily punchable trophy. The connection between YOUR unproven assertion and the anger of a white father at his daughter having a black boyfriend is as clear as day.  

You say: "Black men get white girls for punching bag trophy" and provide nothing but anecdotal proof for the assertion.

Then a white girl's father states: "It pisses me off that you're dating a black man. They're dirty, they smell and they only date white women for a punching bad throphy"

^^^External Force is Here^^^^

You'd literally have to be insane not to see that. Instead of forming some kind of retort. You keep repeating that if I admit the racial reasons of inter-racial relationship could be racial then 'your point is made'. What point? I actually stated this very early in the thread. BEFORE post >>10.

But what we've been talking about since post >>10 is why you think the unproven and racially motavated statements you made in >>2, >>5, >>15, >>21 - made, I might add BEFORE all this trumped up nonsense about Hyperliberalism - are NOT an external force on inter-racial relationships.

The truth is, you fucktarded namefag, that the ONLY reason you keep replying is to project your behavior onto me because you think all of 4chan is watching. Accusing me of not responding or answering isn't going to work when you're literally sitting there in your mother's panties squirming.

Respond to the statement made in >>36 or continue to drown in abysmal failure. I'm not going to stop posting until you man the fuck up.

I think niggers should be more obedient towards their white masters.

>>47

>>46
Like I said before verbatim, as long as you admit that interracial couples could have racial reasons for getting together, then my point is made.  You can try to distract the readers by saying that that point is a 'moving of goalposts'.  Label it however you wish.  My point is clear and anyone who's followed along can see that.

I used a few anecdotal examples for what the POSSIBLE racial reasons are, but in the typical Hyperliberal fashion you just can't stand to ever hear that no matter how rare or prevalent the racial reason is.  Some Blacks use their White partners as trophies.  Some Whites use their Black partners as taunts to their family.  Sad to say, those are true and existing reasons, regardless of how frequently they're invoked.  Deal with it.

I should go marry a nice Muslem girl to go hack their parents off.

You married a jew?!

>>49

That's nice. But, as long as you continue to remain unresponsive to confronting the fact that your blatantly fallacious "anecdotal evidence" is the external factor that would necessitate a black person using a white partner as a trophy or a white person using a black person to taunt their family then my point is made.

As far as I'm concerned this argument ended when your response to >>10 was claiming that I was a liberal. The only way my comments would be a product of Hyperliberalism is if you never made the statements I outlined in >36. But, you did and now here we are: You desperately trying to bold and italic your way out of another debate where you're getting relentlessly skullfucked.

It'll be interesting to see how much longer you can attempt to sweep your fuck ups (or your inability to address said fuck ups) under the rug, because (like I told your mother last night while I was 8inches deep in her steaming cunt) I can go the fucking distance. 

>>51
As long as my point was made, then you have no cause to judge my anecdotes to be fallacious.  However, once again, your Hyperliberalism is quite simply making you do that, so I urge you to get help.  You're literally stuck on stupid.

Once again, I can only remind you that a person is responsible for their behavior.  This is true even if said person is Black and considers his/her SO to be a trophy.  This talk of "external factors" is just a Hyperliberal gayfailing that tries to avoid that truth.

>>52

Someone who continuously skirts around the truth should pretty much should the fuck up about it. If I'm such an obvious Hyperliberal then you should have no problem explaining:

1. why your statements are not an external force
2. why they are not fallacious and
3. why you believe there is NO connection between you (a white person) baselessly type casting blacks as prolific beaters of their white girlfriends and the bigotry of father not wanting his white daughter to date "one of them physically abusive niggers"

Your refusal to address your fallacious statements is a validation of that white father's right to unreasonably discriminate on fallacious and racially motivated grounds. Of course everyone is responsible for their own behavior, that's what I'm talking about. Your behavior is an external force that causes people to internally react. For better or for worse.

I find it ironic that someone who is afraid to confront his own internalized racism is accusing someone else of being brainwashed into racially-minded thinking by Hyperliberalists who are notoriously afraid to talk about race.

Why are you so afraid to discuss the reasons WHY a black person would consider a white person a trophy? Why are you so afraid to address that a white person's black SO only pisses off bigots who think such things as: "Everyone's heard of black fellow's beating up their white girlfriends"?

If you want to discuss race, then here it is. An accused Hyperliberal having a simple discussion about it. Why are you afraid? Scared that you might find out you're not as LIBERAL as you thought you were when it comes to race? Afraid that your LIBERAL parents didn't brainwash you to be as "COLOR BLIND" as you thought? Or are you afraid of being racially CONSERVATIVE, believing all your stereotypes and anecdotes are valid without an objective foundation?

i'm in ur thread, watching redcream get owned
there's two types of people in this thread, people who read redcream's posts and people who didn't. no non-racist has the opinions redcream does. the guy talks exactly like blacks are SUPPOSED to stick with blacks and shit. LOL "the black panthers went legit"

oh well that's a fuckin moron for ya

Niggers are aggressive beasts.

>>53
Your Hyperliberalism continues to impede you.  My statements are hardly an external force since a man is responsible for his own behavior.  Having undertaken an action, he is responsible for it and society cannot be held to blame.  That is true no matter how many Hyperliberals turn society all gayfailsome with their placing of blame "upon society".

All the rest of your so-called conclusions stem from this warped and twisted view you have of the responsibilities of rational men.  So, get back in your ivory tower before we shoot you and raep the corpse.

>>54
Identifying racial reasons why interracial couples could be together, does not mean I said races are supposed to avoid each other.  Your FAIL is EPIC.

>>56

you're dumb as fuck redcream, nobody is talking about the racial reasons why interracial couples could be together anymore. we're talking about why you think blacks beat up their white girlfriends just because they're white

and why in your first reply to this thread you said: 'blacks yearn for whiteflesh' and why you're such an expert on the black panthers

personally i could give a fuck about a nigger, but you're acting like you don't know why black+white couples have social problem surrounding them. it's not magic and it ain't internal.

blacks want white people as trophy because whites are superior. black pride went out with the panthers because they couldn't beat the superior race. i think blacks ARE trying to punish whites because they are inferior and have remained inferior and this is expressed in the culture....not internally. that's just fuckin' stupid.

>>56

That's an interesting (see: redundant) spin on things, but we've covered the hyperliberalism portion of the thread some time ago. Regardless of whatever slant you seem to think I'm coming from, the points I outlined in >>36 and >>53 still need to be addressed or you continue to failHARD.

Like anyone else would be expected to you have to:

1. Explain why your comments are not an exterior force. Clearly the notion that "black boyfriends beat up white girlfriends because they are white" is opinion that spreads due to the ignorance of men. Consider addressing this point as *you* taking responsibility for the action of spreading that baseless ignorance.

2. Respond to the following: Your refusal to address your fallacious statements is a validation of that white father's right to unreasonably discriminate on fallacious and racially motivated grounds. Of course everyone is responsible for their own behavior, that's what I'm talking about. Your behavior is an external force that causes people to internally react. For better or for worse.

I find it ironic that someone who is afraid to confront his own internalized racism is accusing someone else of being brainwashed into racially-minded thinking by Hyperliberalists who are notoriously afraid to talk about race.

3. Explain WHY BLACK+WHITE UNIONS HAVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. Are these social problems having to do  with race, the problem of the couple...or a racist society?

You see, at this point it doesn't matter if you respond or not. I think the white nationalist buried deep inside your faggot-laden anus has pretty much spoken for itself since your opinion seems to mysteriously lined up with the other sturmfornt  gaylords on this board.

The only thing I'm highlighting now is the irony that you seem as deathly afraid of talking about where your opinions of race (inter-racial relationships) stem from as Hyperliberalists do.

It really don't matter where you say my ideals are coming from because now we're talking about where YOUR ideals are coming from. Get it, yet? I didn't make you say the things that were quoted in >>36...so where did they come from?

This discussion is pointless. Everyone discontinue for your own mental safety.

The kneegrows can take all the cows away for all I care!

they make brown children

gotta love how redcream got owned in this one, though. if he wanted unadulterated win he should've just responded to whatever anon asked of him. not like it matters though, it just weird when you see that kind of thing. it's obvious fail but there's nothing you can do to convince the person to stop it

STOP OUR FASCIST GOVERNMENT
ON WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 5TH 2007 STAND AND FIGHT
PAINT SIGNS BLACK...
TIP EVERYTHING POSSABLE....
EGG EVERYTHING...
DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT....
AND PASS THE WORD! POST THIS POST EVERY WHERE HUMANLY POSSABLE..
NOW GO!