On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>> Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing nightsession tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what
I'm watching these two females and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.be orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.
Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing night session tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could
Why should we care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what kind of world is this?
If it's a non race world, then if shouldn't matter, no?
If it's a race world, then how come she expects everyone would be for niggers? Niggers might be for that, but others won't be.
It's beyond pathetic. She should retire from public life in shame and live in a cave for the rest of her life.
I'm watching these two females and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing night session tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadiumkonless, imagine...and then continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.Why should we care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what kind of world is this?If it's a non race world,
You could have made the same point and got more interest if you chose not to be this rude and intentionally use the N word.You simply confirm everything being said about Russia and Russians.
On 5.9.2023 20.32, *skriptis wrote:
You've raised an interesting issue, sure we can discuss it, but you've
also missed the point I've raised I feel.
Not to worry, twist. sawfish regularly misses the points he raises.
You've raised an interesting issue, sure we can discuss it, but you've also missed the point I've raised I feel.
Human decency is a virtue, has nothing to do with religion, faith or your taboos.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You could have made the same point and got more interest if you chose not to be this rude and intentionally use the N word.You simply confirm everything being said about Russia and Russians.Yourculture is not my culture. Your taboos are not my taboos.Besides, since it's not even illegal there, you have no rational grounds to demand anything from me.It's not sanctioned by law in your country, and it's not formal religion in your faith.So it's
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> Human decency is a virtue, has nothing to do with religion, faith or your taboos.Yeah this is so decent of you. Let's be decent."You simply confirm everything being said about Russia and Russians."-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>> Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing nightsession tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what
Somehow you said you are entitled to use the N word and that your faith, religion and taboos are okay with your act then you get sensitive when your act is said to be typical for your people.Explain...Also you are Christian, correct? How is it thatyour religion is fine with your behavior?Another explanation is needed...
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:your religion is fine with your behavior?Another explanation is needed...
Somehow you said you are entitled to use the N word and that your faith, religion and taboos are okay with your act then you get sensitive when your act is said to be typical for your people.Explain...Also you are Christian, correct? How is it that
Anyone using the term "N-word" unironically in an anonymous online forum, as anything other than a joke, is worthy of pity.
You're a laughing stock. Who are you afraid of? Pathetic.
If you use it for humourous purpose, such as when Trump does it to mock it, then it's ok.
https://youtu.be/hR3Vw9Cwn-k?si=-DdAKf6ucHe0eQ7o
Next, I did not get "sensitive" when you insulted Russians as a group, I only called you out on your hypocrisy.whom should you fear more, Al Sharpton or Putin?
You think Russians are to be insulted, but blacks should be worshipped?
I wonder how does that work for you, doing that but still taking moral high ground as you do it?
It's amazing, really.
I know you live under Jewish US system that taught you all that and imprinted such behaviour and thinking patterns in your brain, you've clearly dehumanised Russians to the max, and I not care, but if you think about it more clearly, decency aside,
Think about it, if anything, it's the other way around whom should you fear insulting actually, remember Russians have nukes, blacks don't.
That's the true N-word as Trump points out.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> Somehow you said you are entitled to use the N word and that your faith, religion and taboos are okay with your act then you get sensitive when your act is said to be typical for your people.Explain...Also you are Christian, correct? How is it that your religion is fine with your behavior?Another explanation is needed...Anyone using the term "N-word" unironically in an anonymous online forum, as anything other than a joke, is worthy of pity.
You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linkedto Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rnight session tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we care about two niggers playing in slam QF,
On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>> Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing
You've raised an interesting issue, sure we can discuss it, but you've also missed the point I've raised I feel.
I'm just wondering why do fuck a white female TV commentator would be ecstatic about two blacks playing in a stadium named after a tier IV tennis great who happens to be black?
What's in it for her?
Yet she's ecstatic and behaves as if it's a spectacle for all other people, something to celebrate?
Why should whites or yellows celebrate black tennis success?
It's utterly bizarre.
Sick.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. Iguess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.
On 9/6/23 12:59 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females
and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>>
Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is
tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing night session
tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then continues
with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be orgasm or
something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we care about
two niggers playing in slam QF, what kind of world is this?>> If it's
a non race world, then if shouldn't matter, no?>> If it's a race
world, then how come she expects everyone would be for niggers?
Niggers might be for that, but others won't be.>>>>> It's beyond
pathetic. She should retire from public life in shame and live in a
cave for the rest of her life.>>>I can't speak to the accuracy of
this, skript, but it does raise something that has interested me for
a long time: the "one drop" perception common in places like the
US.It's where one drop of African blood makes the individual by
definition black. This is from the POV of whites.So I suspect that
she's talking about Tiafoe playing Shelton, and the latter is only
nominally black, to my perception.Now, I care less about whether this
is fair or not (who cares?) but *why* one drop of white blood does
not make a black African *white* from the POV of blacks....or does
it?Is it less a genetic judgement than a behavioral one. E.g.,
Madison Keyes acts about as white as anyone I've seen, so might she
be considered a darker skinned "white" person, like Alcaraz
is?Further along this line of thought is Caucasian/Asian mixed race,
or Caucasian/Am-Indian. So if one were to
evaluate--AHEM!--acceptability from the Caucasian POV, the order
might be Caucasian admixtures with the following phenotypes: East
Asian, Am-Indian, African. And this seems to have a lot to do
with perceived stereotypical behavior associated with each group.It's
complex and interesting, and especially so if we entertain the
observation that in many locales, blacks, themselves, seem to give
greater status to light-skin than to darker skin. One might ascribe
this to the influence of white colonial authority, but is this
strictly true? Do cultures of color place a higher value on fairness
than otherwise? I believe that east Asians may also esteem lighter
skin color. This is not to say that they esteem non-Asian physical
features, but simply that fairer is better, at least for females.If
this is pervasive and independently true, what is that all about,
anyway?It's very mysterious to me.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!" --Sawfish
Now to address this issue, yes of course everyone prefers fairer skin.
I guess it's in all cultures?
Women are fairer and everyone is after women and so on, it's
evolutionary.
It can be exotic (fetish) to an extent if a girl is of darker skin so
mildly attractive, just as someone would fetishize about tall women,
but a lighter skin is generally feminine trait and a darker skin is
generally more masculine trait, accross all cultures, same as height
(tall men, shorter for women).
It's not a rocket science.
Which then would explain kinda hysterical one drop rule among American
whites? The black admixture is a penetration of a other masculine force?
I see it along the lines of evolution within a physical environment.
This will require some explanation, but I'll be as brief as I can.
Let's wind back to paleolithic days...
But if culturally there is value in less melanin
On 9/6/23 9:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 18:32:02 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rcos she's a white liberal who is clueless about history and African
On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females
and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>>
Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is
tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing night session
tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then
continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be
orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we
care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what kind of world is
this?>> If it's a non race world, then if shouldn't matter, no?>> If
it's a race world, then how come she expects everyone would be for
niggers? Niggers might be for that, but others won't be.>>>>> It's
beyond pathetic. She should retire from public life in shame and
live in a cave for the rest of her life.>>>I can't speak to the
accuracy of this, skript, but it does raise something that has
interested me for a long time: the "one drop" perception common in
places like the US.It's where one drop of African blood makes the
individual by definition black. This is from the POV of whites.So I
suspect that she's talking about Tiafoe playing Shelton, and the
latter is only nominally black, to my perception.Now, I care less
about whether this is fair or not (who cares?) but *why* one drop of
white blood does not make a black African *white* from the POV of
blacks....or does it?Is it less a genetic judgement than a
behavioral one. E.g., Madison Keyes acts about as white as anyone
I've seen, so might she be considered a darker skinned "white"
person, like Alcaraz is?Further along this line of thought is
Caucasian/Asian mixed race, or Caucasian/Am-Indian. So if one were
to evaluate--AHEM!--acceptability from the Caucasian POV, the order
might be Caucasian admixtures with the following phenotypes: East
Asian, Am-Indian, African. And this seems to have a lot to do with
perceived stereotypical behavior associated with each group.It's
complex and interesting, and especially so if we entertain the
observation that in many locales, blacks, themselves, seem to give
greater status to light-skin than to darker skin. One might ascribe
this to the influence of white colonial authority, but is this
strictly true? Do cultures of color place a higher value on fairness
than otherwise? I believe that east Asians may also esteem lighter
skin color. This is not to say that they esteem non-Asian physical
features, but simply that fairer is better, at least for females.If
this is pervasive and independently true, what is that all about,
anyway?It's very mysterious to me.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!" --Sawfish
You've raised an interesting issue, sure we can discuss it, but
you've also missed the point I've raised I feel.
I'm just wondering why do fuck a white female TV commentator would be
ecstatic about two blacks playing in a stadium named after a tier IV
tennis great who happens to be black?
What's in it for her?
Yet she's ecstatic and behaves as if it's a spectacle for all other
people, something to celebrate?
Why should whites or yellows celebrate black tennis success?
It's utterly bizarre.
Sick.
culture/history, so she's totally convinced that all blacks in the USA
have been oppressed terribly(despite Arthur Ashe, Mali Washington +
Eddie Murphy, Muhammed Ali, Beyonce, Michael Jordan etc) so it's some
kind total miracle that 2 blacks are somehow in the USO QF. White
liberals are obsessed with "helping" those they feel are "victims", no
matter what the case, look at Pelle he still tries to defend Amber
Herd against Captain Jack Sparrow.
"White liberals are obsessed with "helping" those they feel are
"victims..."
Let's work from the assumption that this is accurate (I think it is) and explore it just a bit.
Right on the surface of it, one group who can consistently help another
group is in a superior position that group.
Essentially, white liberals are in the position of showing the
underclass just how superior to them they are. "You can't do it without
*my* help." Really rubbing their noses in it.
Over, and over, and over...
Nice.
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 16 lines --]guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I
You are not Christian anyway so why do you ask you
don't understand it
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn'tinsult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 16 lines --]
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess
You are not Christian anyway so why do you ask youI am not a Christian either, but I understand
don't understand it
Christianity very well. It is such a disgusting
religion.
Jesus was a huge racist himself. He said that
in the end all people will be divided into two
groups: sheep and goats. Or something like that.
If you are a sheep, you will go to "heaven" and
live in eternal bliss with your hero Jesus. On
the other hand, if you happen to be a goat, you
will also live for eternity, but this time in
"hell" where you will be tortured in all kinds
of nasty ways.
Not even the fucking Nazis tortured Jews
for eternity, but Jesus surely will. Amen!
On 6.9.2023 19.16, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/6/23 9:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 18:32:02 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rcos she's a white liberal who is clueless about history and African
On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females >>>> and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>> >>>> Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is
tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing night session
tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then
continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be >>>> orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we
care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what kind of world is
this?>> If it's a non race world, then if shouldn't matter, no?>> If >>>> it's a race world, then how come she expects everyone would be for
niggers? Niggers might be for that, but others won't be.>>>>> It's
beyond pathetic. She should retire from public life in shame and
live in a cave for the rest of her life.>>>I can't speak to the
accuracy of this, skript, but it does raise something that has
interested me for a long time: the "one drop" perception common in
places like the US.It's where one drop of African blood makes the
individual by definition black. This is from the POV of whites.So I >>>> suspect that she's talking about Tiafoe playing Shelton, and the
latter is only nominally black, to my perception.Now, I care less
about whether this is fair or not (who cares?) but *why* one drop of >>>> white blood does not make a black African *white* from the POV of
blacks....or does it?Is it less a genetic judgement than a
behavioral one. E.g., Madison Keyes acts about as white as anyone
I've seen, so might she be considered a darker skinned "white"
person, like Alcaraz is?Further along this line of thought is
Caucasian/Asian mixed race, or Caucasian/Am-Indian. So if one were
to evaluate--AHEM!--acceptability from the Caucasian POV, the order >>>> might be Caucasian admixtures with the following phenotypes: East
Asian, Am-Indian, African. And this seems to have a lot to do with
perceived stereotypical behavior associated with each group.It's
complex and interesting, and especially so if we entertain the
observation that in many locales, blacks, themselves, seem to give
greater status to light-skin than to darker skin. One might ascribe >>>> this to the influence of white colonial authority, but is this
strictly true? Do cultures of color place a higher value on fairness >>>> than otherwise? I believe that east Asians may also esteem lighter
skin color. This is not to say that they esteem non-Asian physical
features, but simply that fairer is better, at least for females.If >>>> this is pervasive and independently true, what is that all about,
anyway?It's very mysterious to me.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!" --Sawfish
You've raised an interesting issue, sure we can discuss it, but
you've also missed the point I've raised I feel.
I'm just wondering why do fuck a white female TV commentator would be >>> ecstatic about two blacks playing in a stadium named after a tier IV
tennis great who happens to be black?
What's in it for her?
Yet she's ecstatic and behaves as if it's a spectacle for all other
people, something to celebrate?
Why should whites or yellows celebrate black tennis success?
It's utterly bizarre.
Sick.
culture/history, so she's totally convinced that all blacks in the USA
have been oppressed terribly(despite Arthur Ashe, Mali Washington +
Eddie Murphy, Muhammed Ali, Beyonce, Michael Jordan etc) so it's some
kind total miracle that 2 blacks are somehow in the USO QF. White
liberals are obsessed with "helping" those they feel are "victims", no
matter what the case, look at Pelle he still tries to defend Amber
Herd against Captain Jack Sparrow.
"White liberals are obsessed with "helping" those they feel are "victims..."
Let's work from the assumption that this is accurate (I think it is) and explore it just a bit.
Right on the surface of it, one group who can consistently help another group is in a superior position that group.
Essentially, white liberals are in the position of showing the
underclass just how superior to them they are. "You can't do it without *my* help." Really rubbing their noses in it.
Over, and over, and over...
Nice.Dumb post.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:ryou must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess
You are not Christian anyway so why do you ask you don't understand it
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 19:07:42 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 6.9.2023 19.16, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/6/23 9:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:Dumb post.
On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 18:32:02 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rcos she's a white liberal who is clueless about history and African
On 9/5/23 9:44 AM, *skriptis wrote:> I'm watching these two females >>>>>> and Ostapenkova took bathroom break after being bageled in set 1.>> >>>>>> Mary then proceeds commentating "oh what a spectacle awaits is
tonight, imagine, two African Americans playing night session
tonight, on Arthur Ashe stadium konless, imagine...and then
continues with some weird sounds coming from her stomach it could be >>>>>> orgasm or something like that" and I'm like wtf.>>> Why should we
care about two niggers playing in slam QF, what kind of world is
this?>> If it's a non race world, then if shouldn't matter, no?>> If >>>>>> it's a race world, then how come she expects everyone would be for >>>>>> niggers? Niggers might be for that, but others won't be.>>>>> It's >>>>>> beyond pathetic. She should retire from public life in shame and
live in a cave for the rest of her life.>>>I can't speak to the
accuracy of this, skript, but it does raise something that has
interested me for a long time: the "one drop" perception common in >>>>>> places like the US.It's where one drop of African blood makes the
individual by definition black. This is from the POV of whites.So I >>>>>> suspect that she's talking about Tiafoe playing Shelton, and the
latter is only nominally black, to my perception.Now, I care less
about whether this is fair or not (who cares?) but *why* one drop of >>>>>> white blood does not make a black African *white* from the POV of
blacks....or does it?Is it less a genetic judgement than a
behavioral one. E.g., Madison Keyes acts about as white as anyone
I've seen, so might she be considered a darker skinned "white"
person, like Alcaraz is?Further along this line of thought is
Caucasian/Asian mixed race, or Caucasian/Am-Indian. So if one were >>>>>> to evaluate--AHEM!--acceptability from the Caucasian POV, the order >>>>>> might be Caucasian admixtures with the following phenotypes: East
Asian, Am-Indian, African. And this seems to have a lot to do with >>>>>> perceived stereotypical behavior associated with each group.It's
complex and interesting, and especially so if we entertain the
observation that in many locales, blacks, themselves, seem to give >>>>>> greater status to light-skin than to darker skin. One might ascribe >>>>>> this to the influence of white colonial authority, but is this
strictly true? Do cultures of color place a higher value on fairness >>>>>> than otherwise? I believe that east Asians may also esteem lighter >>>>>> skin color. This is not to say that they esteem non-Asian physical >>>>>> features, but simply that fairer is better, at least for females.If >>>>>> this is pervasive and independently true, what is that all about,
anyway?It's very mysterious to me.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!" --Sawfish
You've raised an interesting issue, sure we can discuss it, but
you've also missed the point I've raised I feel.
I'm just wondering why do fuck a white female TV commentator would be >>>>> ecstatic about two blacks playing in a stadium named after a tier IV >>>>> tennis great who happens to be black?
What's in it for her?
Yet she's ecstatic and behaves as if it's a spectacle for all other
people, something to celebrate?
Why should whites or yellows celebrate black tennis success?
It's utterly bizarre.
Sick.
culture/history, so she's totally convinced that all blacks in the USA >>>> have been oppressed terribly(despite Arthur Ashe, Mali Washington +
Eddie Murphy, Muhammed Ali, Beyonce, Michael Jordan etc) so it's some
kind total miracle that 2 blacks are somehow in the USO QF. White
liberals are obsessed with "helping" those they feel are "victims", no >>>> matter what the case, look at Pelle he still tries to defend Amber
Herd against Captain Jack Sparrow.
"White liberals are obsessed with "helping" those they feel are
"victims..."
Let's work from the assumption that this is accurate (I think it is) and >>> explore it just a bit.
Right on the surface of it, one group who can consistently help another
group is in a superior position that group.
Essentially, white liberals are in the position of showing the
underclass just how superior to them they are. "You can't do it without
*my* help." Really rubbing their noses in it.
Over, and over, and over...
Nice.
yeah cos nobody on RST would ever think you put yourself as superior to absolutely everyone else especially the "victims" you claim to "help" yeah good old "humble Pelle" AHAH AHAHHHAHAHAHAHH
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answermy question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as insult to them.Now this is getting
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com>Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior as
On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:as insult to them.Now this is getting boring. You think we're all dumb and you so smart?-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlWhy are you switching the discussion, stay on topic.You said you aren'
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rWrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your behavior
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.
But it's not merely a nigger?Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point!
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human
rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human
rights?
The times I've done it online, I've never gotten an answer to
this, only clumsy dodges. It's because they want to be able to indulge
any future whims by adding them to the list.
It's very simple: rights are what the remainder of society let you do consistently without interference. It changes all the time based on
culture and/or circumstance.
That's about it.
...and to borrow from that great social observer, Mr. T: "I pity the po' foo' who don't know that...".
On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@
OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point!
But it's not merely a nigger?
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human
rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human
rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal
rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I,
myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of
problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose
jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just
written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among
recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits,
thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their
basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to
healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as to make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help those
who have convinced me that they require help to survive.
I don't object to people believing this, any more than I object to aThe times I've done it online, I've never gotten an answer toSure. But do you object to the concept of fundamental rights?
this, only clumsy dodges. It's because they want to be able to indulge
any future whims by adding them to the list.
belief in a supreme being. *I* just don't believe in it, myself.
On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@
OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point!
But it's not merely a nigger?
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human
rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human
rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal
rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I,
myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of
problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose
jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just
written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among
recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits,
thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their
basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to
healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as to make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help those
who have convinced me that they require help to survive.
I don't object to people believing this, any more than I object to aThe times I've done it online, I've never gotten an answer toSure. But do you object to the concept of fundamental rights?
this, only clumsy dodges. It's because they want to be able to indulge
any future whims by adding them to the list.
belief in a supreme being. *I* just don't believe in it, myself.
Great feeling, isn't it?It's very simple: rights are what the remainder of society let you doI love it when a plan comes together.
consistently without interference. It changes all the time based on
culture and/or circumstance.
That's about it.
...and to borrow from that great social observer, Mr. T: "I pity the po' >> foo' who don't know that...".
Now cursing is done and it's time for *fun*!
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:34:54 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote: > > On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: > >> On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote: > >>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to
Wrote in message:r > >>>> On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r>
On 9/8/23 8:44 AM, bmoore wrote:gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:34:54 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@
I believe in universal health care, but I recognize it is not trivial to make it happen.OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.But it's not merely a nigger?Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point!
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human
rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human >>>> rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal
rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I,
myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of
problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what >> constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval
directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under >> periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose >> jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just
written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very >> likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among
recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits,
thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why >> should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their
basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to
healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as to >> make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help thoseMakes sense. I'm a fan neither of self-entitled people nor their enablers, at all levels.
who have convinced me that they require help to survive.
BTW, the question of what are human rights probably looks a lot different from a Chinese prison cell.Good observation. POV is everything.
What was that old saying...?
"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a
conservative who's been in jail..."
...or Mel Brooks on the difference between comedy and tragedy...
"If you fall down the stairs, it's comedy. But if I fall down the
stairs, it's tragedy."
I don't object to people believing this, any more than I object to aThe times I've done it online, I've never gotten an answer toSure. But do you object to the concept of fundamental rights?
this, only clumsy dodges. It's because they want to be able to indulge >>>> any future whims by adding them to the list.
belief in a supreme being. *I* just don't believe in it, myself.
Great feeling, isn't it?It's very simple: rights are what the remainder of society let you do >>>> consistently without interference. It changes all the time based on >>>> culture and/or circumstance.I love it when a plan comes together.
That's about it.
...and to borrow from that great social observer, Mr. T: "I pity the po'
foo' who don't know that...".
Now cursing is done and it's time for *fun*!
On 9/8/23 10:33 AM, bmoore wrote:gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:58:09 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 8:44 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:34:54 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@
Excellent way of putting it.Good observation. POV is everything.I believe in universal health care, but I recognize it is not trivial to make it happen.OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.But it's not merely a nigger?Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point!
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human >>>>>> rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human >>>>>> rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal >>>> rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I,
myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of
problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what
constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval >>>> directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under
periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose >>>> jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just >>>> written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very
likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among
recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits, >>>> thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why >>>> should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their >>>> basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to
healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as toMakes sense. I'm a fan neither of self-entitled people nor their enablers, at all levels.
make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help those >>>> who have convinced me that they require help to survive.
BTW, the question of what are human rights probably looks a lot different from a Chinese prison cell.
What was that old saying...?
"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a
conservative who's been in jail..."
Here's what he's doing, though...he's *TELLING* you that by nature,...or Mel Brooks on the difference between comedy and tragedy...i get it, though it's kind of mean. But I love Mel Brooks.
"If you fall down the stairs, it's comedy. But if I fall down the
stairs, it's tragedy."
humans are kinda mean and petty.
And the very fact that listeners *got* the joke, without having to have
it explained to them, indicates that they, themselves, recognize this as common.
So, people are mean and petty.
Which partly informs my lifelong misanthropy.
On 9/8/23 10:52 AM, bmoore wrote:@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:40:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 10:33 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:58:09 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 8:44 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:34:54 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed...
Most people get that humanity, for the most part, sucks. Gotta find the good ones.Here's what he's doing, though...he's *TELLING* you that by nature,Excellent way of putting it.Good observation. POV is everything.I believe in universal health care, but I recognize it is not trivial to make it happen.OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.But it's not merely a nigger?Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point!
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human >>>>>>>> rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human >>>>>>>> rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal >>>>>> rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I, >>>>>> myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of >>>>>> problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what
constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval >>>>>> directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under
periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose
jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just >>>>>> written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very
likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among >>>>>> recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits,
thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why
should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their >>>>>> basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to >>>>>> healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as toMakes sense. I'm a fan neither of self-entitled people nor their enablers, at all levels.
make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help those
who have convinced me that they require help to survive.
BTW, the question of what are human rights probably looks a lot different from a Chinese prison cell.
What was that old saying...?
"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a
conservative who's been in jail..."
...or Mel Brooks on the difference between comedy and tragedy...i get it, though it's kind of mean. But I love Mel Brooks.
"If you fall down the stairs, it's comedy. But if I fall down the
stairs, it's tragedy."
humans are kinda mean and petty.
And the very fact that listeners *got* the joke, without having to have >> it explained to them, indicates that they, themselves, recognize this as >> common.
So, people are mean and petty.Many, but not all.
OK, one last explanation.Which partly informs my lifelong misanthropy.Understood.
I think I'm seeing the whole thing about the same way as you are, but
I'm a sort of guarded pessimistic paranoid by nature. I agree with your observation about "good ones" and "many but not all". So what happens is that when I meet people I am more ready to think that they'll not meet
the qualifications as "good ones"; they are at that point
"undetermined", and I cannot afford them the same level of trust as
"good ones". But nor do I judge them as dangerous, simply as potentially untrustworthy.
It takes quite a while to tell. When I feel pretty certain--and this generally takes years--they're in the "good ones" category.
Similarly, on the other end very few people are proven to be actively malevolent. This, too, is a special group. Most are simply in the middle group: possibly untrustworthy because of lack of insight/intelligence/objectivity/solipsism. That ain't bad--simply the average human.
On 9/8/23 11:46 AM, bmoore wrote:..@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw your
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 11:08:50 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 10:52 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:40:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 10:33 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:58:09 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/8/23 8:44 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:34:54 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <waleed.
Sure, Saw, thanks for the clear clarification. I agree that it can take years to sort people out.OK, one last explanation.Most people get that humanity, for the most part, sucks. Gotta find the good ones.Here's what he's doing, though...he's *TELLING* you that by nature, >>>> humans are kinda mean and petty.Excellent way of putting it.Good observation. POV is everything.I believe in universal health care, but I recognize it is not trivial to make it happen.OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.But it's not merely a nigger?Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point! >>>>>>>>>>
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human
rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human
rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal
rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I, >>>>>>>> myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of >>>>>>>> problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what
constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval
directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under
periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose
jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just >>>>>>>> written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very
likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among >>>>>>>> recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits,
thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why
should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their
basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to >>>>>>>> healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as toMakes sense. I'm a fan neither of self-entitled people nor their enablers, at all levels.
make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help those
who have convinced me that they require help to survive.
BTW, the question of what are human rights probably looks a lot different from a Chinese prison cell.
What was that old saying...?
"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a
conservative who's been in jail..."
...or Mel Brooks on the difference between comedy and tragedy... >>>>>>i get it, though it's kind of mean. But I love Mel Brooks.
"If you fall down the stairs, it's comedy. But if I fall down the >>>>>> stairs, it's tragedy."
And the very fact that listeners *got* the joke, without having to have >>>> it explained to them, indicates that they, themselves, recognize this as
common.
So, people are mean and petty.Many, but not all.
Which partly informs my lifelong misanthropy.Understood.
I think I'm seeing the whole thing about the same way as you are, but
I'm a sort of guarded pessimistic paranoid by nature. I agree with your >> observation about "good ones" and "many but not all". So what happens is >> that when I meet people I am more ready to think that they'll not meet
the qualifications as "good ones"; they are at that point
"undetermined", and I cannot afford them the same level of trust as
"good ones". But nor do I judge them as dangerous, simply as potentially >> untrustworthy.
It takes quite a while to tell. When I feel pretty certain--and this
generally takes years--they're in the "good ones" category.
Similarly, on the other end very few people are proven to be actively
malevolent. This, too, is a special group. Most are simply in the middle >> group: possibly untrustworthy because of lack of
insight/intelligence/objectivity/solipsism. That ain't bad--simply the
average human.
But once you find 'em, keep 'em. If they let you down, you thought wrong. It's a hard fall.It is...
It's a fuckin' disaster...
On 9/8/23 2:09 PM, bmoore wrote:waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> You didn't answer my question about your behavior being Christian.Also, I didn't insult Russians, I linked your behavior to Russians. I guess you must be ashamed of your behavior that was linked to Russians and saw
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 11:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 11:08:50 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/8/23 10:52 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:40:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/8/23 10:33 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:58:09 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/8/23 8:44 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 11:34:54 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 11:08 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/7/23 9:53 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/7/23 1:03 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:40:33 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> *skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky <
Yes.But that was when you were younger, right?It is...Sure, Saw, thanks for the clear clarification. I agree that it can take years to sort people out.OK, one last explanation.Most people get that humanity, for the most part, sucks. Gotta find the good ones.Here's what he's doing, though...he's *TELLING* you that by nature, >>>>>> humans are kinda mean and petty.Excellent way of putting it.Good observation. POV is everything.I believe in universal health care, but I recognize it is not trivial to make it happen.OK. Fair enough.It's about decency.But it's not merely a nigger?Oh, the list is infinitely expandable! That's the point! >>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently there's a jigaboo too.
Have you ever asked someone who is an outspoken advocate of "human
rights" to give you, once and for all, a complete list of all human
rights?
I think that if you can count on 85-90% public acceptance of societal
rules, you can become much more generous with humanitarian aid. I,
myself, miserly brute than I admitted am, would not have a lot of >>>>>>>>>> problem with delivering social aid to *qualified* recipients. As to what
constitutes "qualified*, I think it would be best if you got approval
directly from the voting populace, and that the qualification were under
periodic review for renewal.
But so long as social aid is determined and implemented by people whose
jobs and positions depend on servicing social programs, you've just
written a blank check to uncontrolled and ambitious ideologues. And very
likely they will *encourage*, tacitly or overtly, the idea among >>>>>>>>>> recipients that it's their undeniable *right* to receive the benefits,
thus ensuring that few recipients will seek to become self-reliant. Why
should they, if becoming self-reliant effectively means waiving their
basic human right to childcare, e.g.? Their basic human right to >>>>>>>>>> healthcare paid for by anyone but themselves?
That's the practical side of it, b. The moral side is so amorphous as to
make me leave it alone, although my personal instinct is to help those
who have convinced me that they require help to survive. >>>>>>>>> Makes sense. I'm a fan neither of self-entitled people nor their enablers, at all levels.
BTW, the question of what are human rights probably looks a lot different from a Chinese prison cell.
What was that old saying...?
"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a >>>>>>>> conservative who's been in jail..."
...or Mel Brooks on the difference between comedy and tragedy... >>>>>>>>i get it, though it's kind of mean. But I love Mel Brooks.
"If you fall down the stairs, it's comedy. But if I fall down the >>>>>>>> stairs, it's tragedy."
And the very fact that listeners *got* the joke, without having to have
it explained to them, indicates that they, themselves, recognize this as
common.
So, people are mean and petty.Many, but not all.
Which partly informs my lifelong misanthropy.Understood.
I think I'm seeing the whole thing about the same way as you are, but >>>> I'm a sort of guarded pessimistic paranoid by nature. I agree with your >>>> observation about "good ones" and "many but not all". So what happens is
that when I meet people I am more ready to think that they'll not meet >>>> the qualifications as "good ones"; they are at that point
"undetermined", and I cannot afford them the same level of trust as >>>> "good ones". But nor do I judge them as dangerous, simply as potentially
untrustworthy.
It takes quite a while to tell. When I feel pretty certain--and this >>>> generally takes years--they're in the "good ones" category.
Similarly, on the other end very few people are proven to be actively >>>> malevolent. This, too, is a special group. Most are simply in the middle
group: possibly untrustworthy because of lack of
insight/intelligence/objectivity/solipsism. That ain't bad--simply the >>>> average human.
But once you find 'em, keep 'em. If they let you down, you thought wrong. It's a hard fall.
It's a fuckin' disaster...
Sometimes you can repair it, but not always.
The keepers, they are the best. You gotta be old to get it.You get better at it just like anything else. First, though, is to
actually recognize who/what you are (as best you can tell from your own
POV, which is of course highly suspect... ;^) )
No shit, maybe 40 years ago I "invented" the concept of the periodic self-administered psychic colonoscopy. It is as if you bend over in
front of a mirror and force yourself to look *real hard*. You won't like much of what you see, but it's there, and you can choose to try to fix
it, or admit to your ugly karmic hemorrhoids and resolve to live with them.
Mostly I've tried to fix as many as I reasonably can, but some I can't fix...
You have to do this at least once every five years or so.
...or not. :^)
[/lecture off]
But I love Mel Brooks.
bmoore kirjoitti 8.9.2023 klo 20.33:
But I love Mel Brooks.Skriptis will have a heart attack.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 114:38:10 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,336,169 |