Non-Whites and STDs

[CharonY]

Mus be somewhere with very little sun light and rather extreme levels of vitamin D deficiency.

[Delta1212]

 

If by ''white land'' he means countries populated exclusively by white people with almost no other races, then of course there is.

The same way that many countries in Africa are ''black land''.

 

I'm not saying I support his point, I'm just wondering why you are saying that.

Now I'm wondering which countries those would actually be.

[Lord Antares]

Now I'm wondering which countries those would actually be.

 

Almost all European countries up to several years ago, I would guess. A lot of them today, as well.

 

For example, the white population in Croatia is well over 99%. I would guess between 99.9% and 99.99%. I would guess the same goes for the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Iceland etc.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about countries where exclusively white people live, not where only whites are entitled to live, as zapatos pointed out.

[Strange]

 

If by ''white land'' he means countries populated exclusively by white people with almost no other races, then of course there is.

The same way that many countries in Africa are ''black land''.

 

I'm not saying I support his point, I'm just wondering why you are saying that.

 

 

The land is not "white". Even if the majority of the population are, temporarily. Peoples move. Populations change. There is no land that belongs to "white" people in some absolute sense.

 

p.s. as you say, there is no entitlement of particular groups to specific geographic locations.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

Give a little help to the non whites who populate white land and advise homeward bound.

!

Moderator Note

phrasing such as this represents discussion that is unacceptable.

 

Let's all return to the topic at hand, and discuss that, rather than further derailments focusing on the racist overtones

[Daecon]

Isn't Antarctica a white land?

 

I suppose if there is a correlation between non-caucasian people and a high rate of STD's, then the first step is to determine the cause. I think the most likely cause is lack of education and lack of access to condoms.

 

The cause of THAT is probably likely to be either from poverty or religion (contraception is a sin, etc).

Edited May 2, 2017 by Daecon

[Manticore]

Maybe it was a demonstration of precognition.

Maybe, after 30 years in Africa, I've just got really good at spotting them.

[MigL]

I apologize for my comments early in the thread, Manticore.

I believe in giving everyone a chance to prove themselves...

and then I jumped on you without giving you a chance.

[Manticore]

No problem.

[StringJunky]

Maybe, after 30 years in Africa, I've just got really good at spotting them.

If it walks like a duck... As soon as I see a question asking about genetic differences between "black/coloured" and "white" people I smell a rat because the very act of signifying groups specifically by colour, rather than country or continent, reveals their agenda. If I asked a question of this nature I would be country or continent specific.

Edited May 2, 2017 by StringJunky

[Lord Antares]

If it walks like a duck... As soon as I see a question asking about genetic differences between "black/coloured" and "white" people I smell a rat because the very act of signifying groups specifically by colour, rather than country or continent, reveals their agenda. If I asked a question of this nature I would be country or continent specific.

 

This is true, HOWEVER, I feel like objectivity must be in the first place. Regardless of whether the OP is racist or not, the answer must be the same. Many of these inquiries regarding the genetics or psychology of different races get dissmised right away because of racism, even though a question or a point might be valid. I remember reading an old thread on this forum in which the OP was making valid points and asking valid questions which required elaborate responses, but he got nothing but flaming back because of his open racism. He deserved it, but those responses had nothing to do with his posts and questions. If the worst asshole made a valid point on something, you should consider that point seriously.

 

I agree that continent and country should have been the focus of this specific thread, especially because the black people in Africa obviously live in much different conditions than black people in the US, so a generic statement including just ''black people'' makes no sense. I'm just making the general point that whether the OP is a racist asshole or a polite gentleman makes no difference to the point.

[CharonY]

The trouble is with a racist standpoint is that few actually make a good point, since the preconception is based on faulty assumptions. They try to give it legitimacy but tend to ignore counterpoints (such as those provided by citations), which makes a discussion pretty much meaningless.

 

Even worse many of their points have been rehashed so often ("blacks are inherently more criminal, look at the crime statistics") that it becomes tiresome to refute them (especially as they are getting ignored). What I am saying is that context is important. It is one thing to discuss why certain differences between populations exist, but if everything you say is trying to boil it down to "because of their skin colour/culture/whatever" it pretty much sets the tone of the discussion in very unproductive way.

[Lord Antares]

The trouble is with a racist standpoint is that few actually make a good point, since the preconception is based on faulty assumptions.

 

Sure, but those points are not refuted by ''stfu racist go away'', which is the kind of thing I usually see.

If someone offers an extensive rebuttal and that person ignores it, then that's another matter alltogether.

 

It may be tiresome to refute rehashed questions, but the person wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if he knew the answer to it. Instead, he walks away with only insults and no argument. If you're trying to argue that those kinds of people don't listen to logic anyway, then that is again, a different matter.

[CharonY]

To be fair, I see relatively few posts that just claim racism and usually there is at least on person trying to argue the facts. For the most part (and this why I generally like this forum) people let those guys dig their own holes before they start piling up.

 

 

 

It may be tiresome to refute rehashed questions, but the person wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if he knew the answer to it.

 

I also disagree with that part. There are a few with a genuine question, and you will notice that people here refer to a diverse range of lit or websites to read up. However, those that are eventually locked are usually starting off from a wrong viewpoint: "obviously there is race, you can see it with your own eyes" followed by a straw man, "there is biological diversity, why do you insist that everyone is the same" supplemented with a fatal lack of knowledge in science "if we fully sequence everyone race would be clear as day".

 

Unfortunately, the latter is far more common than the former.

[Manticore]

"We're all colored, or you wouldn't be able to see anyone."

 

Don Van Vliet (Captain Beefheart)

[imatfaal]

"We're all colored, or you wouldn't be able to see anyone."

 

Don Van Vliet (Captain Beefheart)

 

+1

Nice quote - always liked him.

 

Although to get this thread back onto a rational logical base and away from the bat-infested belfry of the OP I would say that logically that Beefy's statement does not follow; it should be we're all coloured, or you wouldn't be able to see everyone - ie the existence of a non-zero percentage of non-coloured people would only prevent you from seeing everybody- rather than preclude you from being able to see anyone.

 

Hopefully that piece of unimaginably obsessive pedantry will kill this thread stone dead.

[StringJunky]

 

Hopefully that piece of unimaginably obsessive pedantry will kill this thread stone dead.

"We are gathered here today....."

Edited May 3, 2017 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

"We are gathered here today....."

 

Some things are better buried in the middle of the night in the backyard.

[Manticore]

Well, the OP seems to have disappeared back into the depths of whatever, so we might just as well bury it. (Shouldn't it be the middle of the night at the crossroads?)

[Strange]

With a stake through the heart of it.