(April 28, 2009 at 11:56 am)bozo Wrote: You do surprise me. I expected you to hotly deny my suggestion that based on the evidence to hand you are possibly a racist in denial. You don't.Erm...I was under the impression I did:
Would you like to?
"Yet another ad hominem, and a completely baseless one."
"It's pretty pathetic."
bozo Wrote:No it's not. Adrian has his own definition of racism and labels anti-racists ( such as me ) racist.Firstly, I have not got my own definition of racism. Racism is the belief that certain races are superior to others. I hold no such views. Racism promotes discrimination of certain races, as well as intolerance to them. I promote equality between all races. I have nothing to gain from being a racist, and I find the position of racism to be disgusting and shameful.
Is that not an attack?
Also, before you attempt to claim an "ad-hominem" on me (although you certainly like using them yourself), please note the difference between calling a group or movement "racist" and calling an individual racist. I have never called you racist, and I have never implied it of you. I call the anti-racist movement racist because all they have done is make it "ok" for some races to say certain things whilst other races cannot. I sincerely doubt a white person could let their child carry a golliwog around in public without getting harassed, but the same could not be said if the child was of black parents.
I'm advocating an either/or strategy. Either something is wrong for all or it is not wrong at all. If a black person can have a golliwog, so should the rest of us. If a black person can say "nigger" then so should the rest of us. An atheist activist last year was criticized for using the word "Negro" in a speech, and people started throwing all kinds of "racist" accusations at him, conveniently forgetting the existence of the "United Negro College Fund". Either the word "negro" is unacceptable for everyone, or it is acceptable for everyone. There is no in-between that one can logically support.
