AlbertaTime wrote:Tell me Eddie, do you still contend that your statement "motherfuckers multiply in a way that puts rabbits to shame" isn't just plain racist?
Or are mine the only errors that interest you here?
AlbertaTime wrote:Tell me Eddie, do you still contend that your statement "motherfuckers multiply in a way that puts rabbits to shame" isn't just plain racist?
Or are mine the only errors that interest you here?
eddiea wrote:AlbertaTime wrote:Tell me Eddie, do you still contend that your statement "motherfuckers multiply in a way that puts rabbits to shame" isn't just plain racist?
Or are mine the only errors that interest you here?
Alberta, when you or your opinions of me become relevant in any way or form, I'll let you know.
Slowpo wrote: The Chinese do multiply in a way that puts rabbits to shame.
I don't see any racism. You are just a Troll AT.
Ditchdoc wrote:AT, I have to hand it to you. You have somehow managed to turn this thread about racism where there is none.
SlowPo: "I just got a new signature: Fuck China" and "Even if you kill 15,000 Chinese a day is goin to take a lifetime to finish them up. I say 500,000 a day. "
OTMF: "The Chinese eat human babies too."
EddieA: "the motherfuckers multiply in a way that put rabbits to shame"
Ditchdoc wrote:Doesn't the Chinese government mandate through heavy penalties how many births each family can have? This was because of their multiplication rate as I remember. I believe it is referred to the one birth policy.
Ditchdoc wrote:I have sat back and watched you do your best to get the last post on this and other related threads.
AlbertaTime wrote:Ditchdoc wrote:Doesn't the Chinese government mandate through heavy penalties how many births each family can have? This was because of their multiplication rate as I remember. I believe it is referred to the one birth policy.
Are you backing China's governmental policy?
AlbertaTime wrote:Ditchdoc wrote:I have sat back and watched you do your best to get the last post on this and other related threads.
That's wrong, too. I left this thread last night and said so. I was asked back by Falstaff.
Hawk wrote:I am not AT nor do I portray him on the internet. But there seems to be some fun prospects for discussion.
Falstaff wrote:...People who don't like China are racists and bigots, saying bad things about China is hatespeech, Slo-po is a bad, bad man, etc. etc.)
And here I thought the primary issue was whether or not publicly calling for their murder was or was not racist. Personally I'm growing more sanguine about the matter as it's evident those doing so are engaging in a bit of good natured AT, and to a lesser extent, Hawk baiting. My guiding light is rather simplistic: if you change "Chinese" to "Black" would you post it?
One poster has noted that "chink" or similar pejoratives have not been employed hence the posts aren't racist. That forces me to conclude that it would be OK to say you'd kill Africans, note that they breed like rabbits, have poor hygiene, etc provided the word "nigger" was left unsaid. I'll confess to being uncomfortable with that assertion.
Falstaff wrote:You wondered about the relevance of my skinned kitten face story in relation to the larger discussion of Chinese dog eating and their very casual attitude toward animal cruelty in general. You told me about your rabbit's foot as indicative that animal cruelty is not a merely Chinese practice. I concur.
I don't visit for a couple days and look what I've missed - the whole skinned kitten thing. I doubt you'll get anyone to condone or defend such a practice.
Falstaff wrote:However, rabbits are mainly raised for meat - kittens are not.
And here lies the crux of the "thread that wouldn't die" - a fundamental failure to understand that your culture isn't the only one in the world - dogs are raised for meat in other parts of the globe with China not even the, unh, leader of the pack, if you will.
We're all products of our culture and I'm no exception - I find the practice abhorrent and in particular the method of slaughter. However it first came to my attention regarding View Nam.
There a reason there are thesis, papers and studies on "cultural bias". The word "bias" fits.
Falstaff wrote:I'd like to skin the living face off the Chinese filth who thought up this enterprise, wipe my ass with it and piss into whatever was left on the front of his head. I'd also smash his wristwatch for good measure. I'm a cat lover, you see. I find kitten slaughtering offensive. It's my particular ox that's being gored. Got it? Relevance.
My question is - does this make me a racist?
The scale is way off - you only want to kill those responsible. A similar response in the dog context would have us only killing those actually responsible for the butchering. In the context of this forum that might be considered a restrained response.
My apologies for the excess snippage - I'm trying to take the advice to be more concise to heart.
Ditchdoc wrote:AlbertaTime wrote:Ditchdoc wrote:I have sat back and watched you do your best to get the last post on this and other related threads.
That's wrong, too. I left this thread last night and said so. I was asked back by Falstaff.
So you really didn't leave did you smegma?
You continue to throw those quotes up because thats all you've got. Those posts were made just to fuck with you
Ditchdoc wrote:For fuck sake, at least go to China before you defend their bullshit. Until then, you have ZERO credibility living in the great white north.
AlbertaTime wrote:Ditchdoc wrote:For fuck sake, at least go to China before you defend their bullshit. Until then, you have ZERO credibility living in the great white north.
Have you been to China?. Because if not, on just that basis _you_ can't claim any more credibility about China than you allow me.
Ditchdoc wrote:BTW AT, there's a post about China copying the Iphone. Why don't you head over there and defend that as well.
Ditchdoc wrote:If the Chinese government can stop people from talking and stifle free speech, they could certianly stop counterfieters in their country IF they wanted too. Don't you think?
the article wrote:Of course, in China, Marxist morality shifts over time. And today, the most moral thing that Chinese policies and people can do is promote economic growth and development, regardless of the distributional outcomes.
In our time in China, we heard several reasons why the massive country simply couldn't adopt Western-style democracy. The population is too large and too diverse. Democracy promotes the sort of arguing that hinders growth. The performance of other Asian countries seemed to have suffered when fractious democracies emerged from authoritarian or military rule. Xu added a new one: It would promote unhealthy class warfare.
If elections were to be held in a large geographical area where gaps between the rich and poor are wide, and in which people have different educational backgrounds, "it might cause turbulences to society," he said. "If somebody just went out in the street and shouted, 'I will divide the property of rich people into poor people,' I think he would be elected. But it is useless, as parity will not solve the problem of economic development." (emphasis mine--AT)
Yes, the creation of wealth in China has been wildly uneven. But this, too, is consistent with the party's goals, doctrine, and history, according to Xu. "Sometimes when we have the faith we have to take different approaches to realize our beliefs. The ultimate goal is the common prosperity, but we have to let a group of people to get rich first."
wikipedia wrote:Xu Kuangdi KmstkNO (Chinese: 徐匡迪; pinyin: Xú Kuāngdí; born December 1937 in Tongxiang, Zhejiang, China) is a Chinese politician of the ruling Communist Party. He was mayor of Shanghai from 1995 to 2001. He supervised the transformation of Shanghai during his administration into a center for international investment and trade that helped lead the intensive development of China's economy. He was demoted in 2001, to a far more obscure and powerless position as party chief of the Academy of Engineering in Beijing, apparently as the result of an intra-party power struggle between President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji, both former Mayors of Shanghai. Xu was replaced by Executive Vice-Mayor Chen Liangyu, one of Jiang's followers later arrested for corruption. He continues as Vice-Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.
Xu graduated from the famous Hangzhou High School. He graduated from the Beijing Institute of Iron and Steel Engineering in 1959, during the midst of the Great Leap Forward, and was a professor there from 1959 to 1963, then at the Shanghai Institute of Engineering from 1963 to 1971, through the height of the Cultural Revolution. He did not join the Communist Party of China until 1983. He studied in Britain in 1982 and 1983 and worked in Sweden from 1984 to 1985; he also won a national award for his design of a stainless steel pipe for use in aircraft production.
He held a number of other academic positions through 1991, when Zhu appointed him as director of the Shanghai Municipal Planning Committee, allegedly because he had remarked that he hated central planning. That position led to a number of increasingly powerful positions within the municipal government of Shanghai. He was an alternate member of the 14th CPC Central Committee and member of the 15th and 16th CPC Central Committees.
Xu is currently a Vice-Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference,[2] Party Chief and President of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He is a professor and doctoral supervisor at Shanghai University. He retired on June 11, 2010.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests