Will America's Conscience Please Stand Up?

[mookiemcgee]

They only voted for him because he's black. That seems pretty racist to me. Then they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for being black. If all they can look at is skin color, they are racists, pure and simple.

Republicans can look past his skin color and see him for the Muslim non-American that he is.

In a generalized sense I get where you are going (*feigned laughter*), but your post still completely disagrees with Tzor's contention that dems are old white men that hate blacks.

[Dukasaur]

I wonder when the rest of the 320 million of us will reply to this thread and stand up for Dukky? Just not enough circulation I guess.

I don't think we have any U.S. Senators in this forum. However, so far the response from Senators has been encouraging.

Rand Paul stood up against this crime immediately, as previously noted.

John McCain has, of course.

The torture of detainees in U.S. custody during the last decade was one of the darkest chapters in American history. The Senate must do its job in scrutinizing the record & involvement of Gina Haspel in this disgraceful program.

That's it for the Republicans so far, but I think as the confirmation hearings draw closer there will be more.

Quite a few Dems will be opposed.

Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois and an Iraq war veteran, said “supporting torture should disqualify people from having the privilege of serving the American people in government ever again, but apparently Donald Trump thinks it merits promotion”.

It's worth noting, I think, that actual combat veterans like McCain and Duckworth were quick to speak out against Haskel.

[armati]

speaking of tourture

WATCH: Cops Torture Mentally Ill Man in Restraint Chair for 2 Days, Laugh as He Dies in Front of Them
Big BrotherCorruptionNewsPolice State
March 20, 2018 0
by Matt A, //thefreethoughtproject.com/

San Luis Obiso County, CA — Terrifying video of an in-custody death has recently been released confirming police officers tortured a man for days in a restraint chair and then laughed as he spent his final moments alive suffering in agony in his jail cell.

im having issues with links, ya wanna watch the vid ya gotta copy paste ...or actually type.

i ran across it at sgtreport

[Neoteny]

All cats are beautiful.

[DoomYoshi]

They only voted for him because he's black. That seems pretty racist to me. Then they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for being black. If all they can look at is skin color, they are racists, pure and simple.

Republicans can look past his skin color and see him for the Muslim non-American that he is.

In a generalized sense I get where you are going (*feigned laughter*), but your post still completely disagrees with Tzor's contention that dems are old white men that hate blacks.

No it doesn't. He said they are racists. They still are, as are groups like Black Lives Matter. Only those of us who don't acknowledge skin color at all are unracist.

The Democrats are white people that hate the blacks and black people that hate the whites. Everyone who votes Democrat is a bonafide racist and all their candidates are racists.

[DirtyDishSoap]

this is a problem. of course anyone would sacrifice a person over thousands.. but is it really like that?

you're operating under the "information" others give you. you cannot avoid this responsibility only because you're pledged to the army IMO.

Yes and yes. What responsibility though? That I'm torturing someone to save others? As I've said, anyone that is willing to condemn the lives of thousands/millions is going to earn no sympathy from me. The same goes for the folks that have gotten killed over the course of my tour. They made their choice, I've made mine, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Since we're on the topic of "pledging" myself to the Army. I gave two shits less as to why I was there. My top priorities were the guys to my left and right. No political bullshit, no ethical or morality checks, no political correctness, just a make it home in one piece mentality.

I mean of course you can, and millions do. But it's not right to do so. Not if you really want to tackle the problem. The problem lies with giving a government the right and power to torture and kill other persons on your behalf AND at their discretion.

You're ignoring the hypothetical scenario though. Would you do condemn it or find another solution in those 48 hours? It's a pretty straight forward answer. Ignore my background and what I typed that supports it, and pay attention to the question I asked initially.

You can apply this same logic to a Sociopaths test.
-You're on a train that is speeding out of control and the conductor is knocked out. Up ahead there's a Y section fast approaching. The train is on the course to the left, where five random people are tied to the rails. The right is clear, however, in order for you to change the trains course, you have to push this massively obese man off the train to where he'll effectively change the trains course to the right, missing the five people but obviously killing him. You have 30 seconds to decide if you condemn one man, or five people. Can you guess which one a sociopath picks?

Maybe I am a sociopath, maybe a large majority of people that go overseas become sociopaths, I almost think it's necessary so you don't come back fucked out of your mind. Or maybe I'm just a guy that can handle shitty situations and make the most of it.

Also, what seems right to you might seem wrong to others, and who is to say who's right? For you the enemy appears to be Bin Laden or whatever, for them it seems to be the US and it's never ending interests expansion. When you are fed propaganda 24/7 you end up buying it.

That's why we have human rights and due process, to try to prevent from abuse of power.

That's great and all that some people see it wrong but look at abortion for example - You can't appease everyone. You're either forced to take a pro or against stance on it and force one group to be subjected to it as a right answer.
Every individual you meet has a subjective view on what's right and what's wrong. It takes a collective group to implement laws and morals to force people to understand that this is right and this is wrong. At one point in history, being gay was wrong but it's now okay. Sodomy was wrong but it's now treated as a norm. So on and so forth. Shit changes.
Murder is wrong.
Thievery is wrong.
Assault is wrong.
Charity is right.
Procreation is right.
Medicine is right.
Abortion is gray
Guns (in America) are currently gray

The governments responsibility is to the people and that also involves protecting it's citizens. It also needs to listen. If the government didn't listen to it's people, then guess what? Gay people wouldn't have any rights whatsoever and would still be persecuted, slavery would still exist, and fucking your wife up the butt would get your ass tossed in prison assuming you're dumb enough to get caught. I would never compare our government to the likes of a dictatorship or tyrannical when we clearly still make social progress. Is it perfect? f*ck no, what country is?
Bottom line though - I'm willing to ignore the morality and ethical terms of torture if it becomes one of the very few ways to determine a nuke in a highly populated area. Whether or not it bears fruit from It, we'll never know unless my scenario suddenly becomes true and the government does indeed torture whomever for the location. Once again - Too many variables.

[mrswdk]

Murder is wrong.
Thievery is wrong.

Neither of those terms (murdering and thieving) actually describe a specific set of actions. They're just ways of saying that someone has broken the law. For example, in several US states it's legal to shoot and kill someone for entering your home without your permission. In most other countries shooting someone in that manner would be considered 'murder'. Apparently, whether or not shooting an intruder is murder and therefore 'wrong' depends on your country's legal system.

Isn't the US President the person who ultimately signs off all laws in the US? I guess that means your morality is currently dictated by the thoughts and teachings of Trump.

[DirtyDishSoap]

No shit.

Is everyone going to take my shit out of context and inflate it with garbage?

[KoolBak]

Mr. S is simply a,complete and utter tool, as he displays by his every post. Don't even benefit him with a reply brother.

I found that to be a very well written, thought provoking post, and am impressed . For what its worth....lol.

Don't want to take the time to write a book, and I actually need to think about it for a while in order to post something thats.....legible....

But - if someone WAS absolutely guilty of a heinous act and had information that was needed? That person gave up any rights normally held by a human. Torture them, by all means.

Duk....if you caught some lowlife that had just tortured a person important to you (mom, wife, daughter, sister) to death in the most awful way possible....what would you do?

[mrswdk]

Mr. S is simply a,complete and utter tool, as he displays by his every post.

When you point a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at you.

[Dukasaur]

Duk....if you caught some lowlife that had just tortured a person important to you (mom, wife, daughter, sister) to death in the most awful way possible....what would you do?

At the very least, beat him unconscious before turning him over to the authorities. Possibly, kill him. Possibly, torture him, although probably not. One of the first two is more likely. Still, I won't rule out the third.

That's what one does when one's own person or family is under attack. Fight as dirty as necessary. It is not, however, in any way equivalent to a bureaucrat who is not in any direct peril cold-bloodily ordering the torture of a prisoner who has not, in fact, directly attacked him.

Sometimes thing happen in battle. Sometimes an enemy soldier is trying to surrender but the the troops are just too hot to stop shooting and they mow him down. These things happen all the time. They're not encouraged but they're understood. But that's totally different from a bureaucrat far, far from the combat zone, ordering the cold-blooded torture of prisoner.

I've even said that for terrorists who kill and maim innocent civilians, torture should be a sentencing option. That's assuming that there is complete certainty in the guilty verdict. It is not, however, in any way equivalent to a bureaucrat ordering the torture of a prisoner who has not been convicted of anything. In fact, a prisoner who hasn't even been accused of anything except knowing the wrong people. (The main case that is being discussed is a man who 16 years later still has not been charged with ANY crime.)

What the CIA was running was what defense attorneys normally describe as a "fishing expedition." That's when a cop decides he doesn't like the look of you or you're hanging out with the wrong people, and he arrests you without any evidence and then goes digging until he finds something. If it happens to you, it will get the case thrown out of court, unless the cop is extraordinarily good at lying or the judge is extraordinarily corrupt. But that's the point. These people taken to these black sites didn't face any courts. Some of them were guilty of something and some of them weren't. We'll never know the full truth because it was all done by these shadowy spooks, outside the rule of law, outside any kind of civilian oversight. Furthermore, if it happens to you, the hypothetical cop might slap your around a bit, but I'm pretty sure he won't waterboard you, doing permanent damage to your lungs, heart, eyes and brain. I'm pretty sure he won't tie you up in "stress positions" and leave you that way for days, leaving you with permanent damage to your shoulder sockets and neck and a lifetime of incurable pain ahead.

KB, you accused me earlier on of trying to smear all of America or something like that. It just isn't true. I like America, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that there's a very strong sense of the importance of rights. I think the vast majority of Americans believe in due process, believe in the the rule of law. But the thing with rights is that you have to cherish them, even when they're not on your side. Preserving the rights of the accused matters, even when they're people you don't like, because just one twist of the political kaleidoscope and suddenly you're the one being arrested without cause, you're the one being tortured into a confession, you're the one being jailed without benefit of counsel.

[KoolBak]

Glad to hear your reply to the mom question

Wasn't accusing you brother, or at least I didn't mean to....I just get SO sick of the accusations leveled against the USA when there are so many of us and SO many different cultures, communities, styles and individuals. We really are the melting pot. Bad mouth the politicians and particular individuals all you want...I enjoy that.....just not all of us ;o)

I only say good things aboot you hosers, no matter how crazy I really think you are

[nietzsche]

this is a problem. of course anyone would sacrifice a person over thousands.. but is it really like that?

you're operating under the "information" others give you. you cannot avoid this responsibility only because you're pledged to the army IMO.

Yes and yes. What responsibility though? That I'm torturing someone to save others? As I've said, anyone that is willing to condemn the lives of thousands/millions is going to earn no sympathy from me. The same goes for the folks that have gotten killed over the course of my tour. They made their choice, I've made mine, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Since we're on the topic of "pledging" myself to the Army. I gave two shits less as to why I was there. My top priorities were the guys to my left and right. No political bullshit, no ethical or morality checks, no political correctness, just a make it home in one piece mentality.

The responsibility of either torturing or giving the order. By this I meant, the moral responsibility of torturing someone basing yourself in what others say, not being an idiot and realising the government lies, or colours the truth somehow to manipulate.

About you being in Army, Buster, I completely agree, once you're there the decision was made and you're to follow thru for your own sake. No philosophizing there.

[nietzsche]

I mean of course you can, and millions do. But it's not right to do so. Not if you really want to tackle the problem. The problem lies with giving a government the right and power to torture and kill other persons on your behalf AND at their discretion.

You're ignoring the hypothetical scenario though. Would you do condemn it or find another solution in those 48 hours? It's a pretty straight forward answer. Ignore my background and what I typed that supports it, and pay attention to the question I asked initially.

You can apply this same logic to a Sociopaths test.
-You're on a train that is speeding out of control and the conductor is knocked out. Up ahead there's a Y section fast approaching. The train is on the course to the left, where five random people are tied to the rails. The right is clear, however, in order for you to change the trains course, you have to push this massively obese man off the train to where he'll effectively change the trains course to the right, missing the five people but obviously killing him. You have 30 seconds to decide if you condemn one man, or five people. Can you guess which one a sociopath picks?

Maybe I am a sociopath, maybe a large majority of people that go overseas become sociopaths, I almost think it's necessary so you don't come back fucked out of your mind. Or maybe I'm just a guy that can handle shitty situations and make the most of it.

how obese is him? and is this in the morning? have i had my coffee? because i won't probably be in the mood of lifting heavy objects if i haven't had my coffee.

i would probably ask myself what would be the legal implications.. would i be do time for killing the fat man? sort of like, "we thank you for saving those 5 lives.. but you knew you'll kill this fat father of 4, so, we're taking your home and your car to give to the kids and will give you a reduced sentence of 5 years.. but you're gonna have a record. yeah, cry me a river, you should've thought twice.. those junkies it's not the first time they tie themselves to the rails and cause an accident when the driver needs to switch and go towards the chemical plant. many commuters arrive late to work for these idiots"

when you make the number 5, you sort of need more context lol. Make it my mom instead of 5 randos and i kill the fat guy without hesitation and yell at him "tough luck fatass" while he's falling.

i don't think you're a sociopath.

[nietzsche]

Also, what seems right to you might seem wrong to others, and who is to say who's right? For you the enemy appears to be Bin Laden or whatever, for them it seems to be the US and it's never ending interests expansion. When you are fed propaganda 24/7 you end up buying it.

That's why we have human rights and due process, to try to prevent from abuse of power.

That's great and all that some people see it wrong but look at abortion for example - You can't appease everyone. You're either forced to take a pro or against stance on it and force one group to be subjected to it as a right answer.
Every individual you meet has a subjective view on what's right and what's wrong. It takes a collective group to implement laws and morals to force people to understand that this is right and this is wrong. At one point in history, being gay was wrong but it's now okay. Sodomy was wrong but it's now treated as a norm. So on and so forth. Shit changes.
Murder is wrong.
Thievery is wrong.
Assault is wrong.
Charity is right.
Procreation is right.
Medicine is right.
Abortion is gray
Guns (in America) are currently gray

The governments responsibility is to the people and that also involves protecting it's citizens. It also needs to listen. If the government didn't listen to it's people, then guess what? Gay people wouldn't have any rights whatsoever and would still be persecuted, slavery would still exist, and fucking your wife up the butt would get your ass tossed in prison assuming you're dumb enough to get caught. I would never compare our government to the likes of a dictatorship or tyrannical when we clearly still make social progress. Is it perfect? f*ck no, what country is?
Bottom line though - I'm willing to ignore the morality and ethical terms of torture if it becomes one of the very few ways to determine a nuke in a highly populated area. Whether or not it bears fruit from It, we'll never know unless my scenario suddenly becomes true and the government does indeed torture whomever for the location. Once again - Too many variables.

I think you're missing my point here. It's not that Abortion is right or wrong. It's that your government is a group of people that think in their own interests first. I'd say 95% of politics are thinking more in how to get another couple of millions for their retirement instead of hwo to make things right. Another 80% of them had had to ask for help along the way to get there.. and have favours to repay. Others were caught doing something illegal along the way and are grabbed by the balls by other politicians or other groups of power.

Government policies are deeply influenced by private interests. You're government or it's top officials in a certain organisation might want something done no matter what.. and the would be willing to go on a "70-30% chance this guy works for a cell" and approve him to be tortured for info.

If you or a family member got caught in that position, tortured because his 8yo is curious and was googling for videos of alqaeda shootings or whatever reason.. would it look fair to you? Or simply a guy in a war, working for your "enemy" and your boss suddenly thinks he's got info.. quickly skypes with a fat Russell Crow having a venti chai late and he gives him green light.. that guy working for your enemy probably has kids, and from his point of view, he's helping his people to avoid being invaded by white dudes disrespectful of it's culture.


I'm not sure if I should ask you to consider all this, I wouldn't even want you to have any second thoughts about your actions. I'm talking of theoretical positions and you've been there. It means, just having my coffee for me.

[tzor]

Tzor this rant smell so much like bullshit even the flies are scared to come near it. So the democratic part nominated and elected Barack Obama to the presidency because they are racist? Do i have that right?

You know Barry's not "Black" right? He's "African American" (literally as his father was from Africa; not a drop of former slave blood in him).
You do know that Hillary was supposed to be the candidate, but she couldn't even win the primary.
He also used every trick in the "Rules for Radicals" Book making it difficult to oppose him.
The Lion of the Senate got pissed at the Clinton's and switched sides. He would later croak after a series of seizures.
Here is the primary distribution by state, the Yellow is for Clinton


Another irony is that under Obama, minority blacks were hurt the hardest. CNN: Where change never came: Obama's hometown

[DirtyDishSoap]

The responsibility of either torturing or giving the order. By this I meant, the moral responsibility of torturing someone basing yourself in what others say, not being an idiot and realising the government lies, or colours the truth somehow to manipulate.

About you being in Army, Buster, I completely agree, once you're there the decision was made and you're to follow thru for your own sake. No philosophizing there.

Of course the government lies about bullshit. My 2nd deployment wasn't for freedom, edit - but for dubious reasons.

You're asking me to do all of the leg work. Find out if he did indeed have ties to planting the bomb, fly myself all the way to the border, capture him, and then torture him for that information so I can have a clean conscience that the guy deserves it. I can't do all of that by myself.
Anywho, you still haven't answered the question. Don't over complicate it. You for sure know this guy planted or helped plan it. Would you or would not torture him for the location of the nuke?

Thanks buster brown. <3

how obese is him? and is this in the morning? have i had my coffee? because i won't probably be in the mood of lifting heavy objects if i haven't had my coffee.

i would probably ask myself what would be the legal implications.. would i be do time for killing the fat man? sort of like, "we thank you for saving those 5 lives.. but you knew you'll kill this fat father of 4, so, we're taking your home and your car to give to the kids and will give you a reduced sentence of 5 years.. but you're gonna have a record. yeah, cry me a river, you should've thought twice.. those junkies it's not the first time they tie themselves to the rails and cause an accident when the driver needs to switch and go towards the chemical plant. many commuters arrive late to work for these idiots"

when you make the number 5, you sort of need more context lol. Make it my mom instead of 5 randos and i kill the fat guy without hesitation and yell at him "tough luck fatass" while he's falling.

i don't think you're a sociopath.

The test question is meant to be a matter of instinct. I obviously can't sit you in a room, time you, and ask for an answer on the forum. The whole point of the question though is that a sociopath would have 0 problems pushing the fat guy off the train to save five people. I don't think it matters really who's tied to the tracks, rather than just making the decision.

Anyways, same thing as before, you're overcomplicating the question and trying to make it logistical.

I think you're missing my point here. It's not that Abortion is right or wrong. It's that your government is a group of people that think in their own interests first. I'd say 95% of politics are thinking more in how to get another couple of millions for their retirement instead of hwo to make things right. Another 80% of them had had to ask for help along the way to get there.. and have favours to repay. Others were caught doing something illegal along the way and are grabbed by the balls by other politicians or other groups of power.

I'll never understand politics completely and the shady backdoor deals that go on behind it.

What I do know is that without a form of governance, we as a society would implode. Looting and killing would be a norm, nobody would give a shit about their neighbor, so on and so forth.

You can argue that the government as a collective acts on it's own interests but I disagree (at least with ours and several other current governments) that it acts in the interests of it's people, at least to a degree. I simply can look at history and see how we have gotten here today, and it's mostly due to the government listening to the people in some form or another. There are of course crooked politicians. The war on drugs I think is one of the biggest fucking mistakes in recent American history all because Nixon had a hard on for 'Nam. Our system is not perfect. And again, no country is picture perfect either. The government basically decides what's right and what's wrong, but I'm fortunate enough to live in a country to where it gives enough of a shit to where we can voice our opinion about what should be right and wrong.

Government policies are deeply influenced by private interests. You're government or it's top officials in a certain organisation might want something done no matter what.. and the would be willing to go on a "70-30% chance this guy works for a cell" and approve him to be tortured for info.

Debatable. If a policy comes is implemented, you're always going to have winners and losers, it's just a matter of having that policy approved by different legislators. That's why (normally) incredibly shitty bills never see the light of day. Now if you want to argue that people in power are acting in their own self interest or pursuing a specific goal IE: "I want ISIS eliminated," then yeah, I really expect them to resort to whatever resource they can to accomplish that goal. If they have to act on a gambit for a suspected or known terrorist by torturing information, knowing that the information he has is one step closer to accomplishing that goal, to me the ends justify means. That's one entire group gone, no more bombings at concerts, bridges or other populated areas.

Of course there are other notoriously shitty politicians that are going to act on their own self interest to either preserve power or money and what have you. Nixon, again, is a perfect example. I'm not arguing that we're perfect, or that we live in a paradise, but I'd rather live here, where I feel like the government does give a shit about it's people vs living in a third world country where a dictator can kill whomever on a whim just because he feels like it, or I'm not going to get ran over by a tank during a protest, etc.

If you or a family member got caught in that position, tortured because his 8yo is curious and was googling for videos of alqaeda shootings or whatever reason.. would it look fair to you? Or simply a guy in a war, working for your "enemy" and your boss suddenly thinks he's got info.. quickly skypes with a fat Russell Crow having a venti chai late and he gives him green light.. that guy working for your enemy probably has kids, and from his point of view, he's helping his people to avoid being invaded by white dudes disrespectful of it's culture.

I'm not sure if I should ask you to consider all this, I wouldn't even want you to have any second thoughts about your actions. I'm talking of theoretical positions and you've been there. It means, just having my coffee for me.

Well, thankfully it doesn't work like that here, otherwise all those shooters that the FBI had admittedly been monitoring but didn't act on probably wouldn't have happened.

In terms of the whole war thing - War is an ugly business, we can all agree on that. It's not a walk in the park with your dog. The problem with this war vs previous wars is that it's entirely based around Guerilla Warfare. We don't know who is who because the enemy one minute would be firing at us, the next minute, ditch the gun, change clothes and act like nothing happened. Over the years, we came up with systems that track and ID people with their eye iris and finger prints. This was meant to reduce innocent lives being taken or captured, questioned and falsely imprisoned. People make bad calls though. Sometimes it's an incredibly shitty call. Sometimes it's the right one. There are people out there that refuse to follow an order because it looks and more than likely is a really shitty call, others just blindly follow it. I'm also not going to deeply philosophy the people that were killed. I can't go find the guy that killed Dickhut and tell him "He had a wife and child, how could you?" Because his response would probably be something along the lines of us being infidels and that Allah demands us to be purged, blah blah. That's war man, you don't think about that kind of shit because everyone has their reasons to fight and their reasons to want to live, it's been like that since time memorial.

I never would have second thoughts on my actions. What's done is done. I'm not ashamed of it.

[mookiemcgee]

Tzor this rant smell so much like bullshit even the flies are scared to come near it. So the democratic part nominated and elected Barack Obama to the presidency because they are racist? Do i have that right?

You know Barry's not "Black" right? He's "African American" (literally as his father was from Africa; not a drop of former slave blood in him).
You do know that Hillary was supposed to be the candidate, but she couldn't even win the primary.
He also used every trick in the "Rules for Radicals" Book making it difficult to oppose him.
The Lion of the Senate got pissed at the Clinton's and switched sides. He would later croak after a series of seizures.
Here is the primary distribution by state, the Yellow is for Clinton


Another irony is that under Obama, minority blacks were hurt the hardest. CNN: Where change never came: Obama's hometown

Ok got it... So democrats are racist because :

1.Obama wasn't black
2.This non black made it difficult for racist to oppose him because god knows racist are strong in theri convictions and just give up when things are tough.
3. Something about hillary, and some far fetched consiparicy theory in which the Clintons murder sitting black congressmen. Regardless of it's truth it in no way has anything to do with dems at large being "the most racist"
4. Maps showing purple and yellow spreads of the country (hint, black people live and vote all over the country now)

[DoomYoshi]

The best part is that the entire world voted against Hillary except a handful of states. Even Djibouti agreed.

[mrswdk]

Obama's dad was from Africa therefore Obama is not black?

[mookiemcgee]

Obama's dad was from Africa therefore Obama is not black?

that's what he said...



Guess I didn't know black was only an acceptable term for the ancestors of free'd American slaves. Tzor you might want to tell the rest of the world, and fix Wikipedia while you are at it....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

[DoomYoshi]

Black - not a race.

[mookiemcgee]

Black - not a race.

this just in from Doom, "I hate black people" is no longer a racist statement!

[DoomYoshi]

It never has been. There is no such group of people as black people, and even if there were, it wouldn't be a race. It's a lie invented by the racists to fuel their racist crap. Even acknowledging their argument is racist. That's what I said earlier, I'm not sure why you thought I was joking.

[mookiemcgee]

It never has been. There is no such group of people as black people, and even if there were, it wouldn't be a race. It's a lie invented by the racists to fuel their racist crap. Even acknowledging their argument is racist. That's what I said earlier, I'm not sure why you thought I was joking.

Race is defined as : "each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

Such as say... skin color!

White (of european origin with "white skin") or black (of African origin with " dark black skin") or Brown (generally central/south american origin, though other might apply "with brown skin") in America are basically place holder terms to group people of a wide variety of different ethniticites/races and physical characteristics, into larger subsets. Society and language come up with these classification so we can have inteligent conversation about complex issues without getting bogged down in semantics. Would it make you feel better if I used a term like bigot/xenophobe to describe white people in USA that hate black people in USA? Then you can stop making a semantic argument that is irrelevant to Tzor's post?