concerned for the injured and victims

[Lydiot]

@Vincent:
Read back in Lydiot's posts in the past and you see, he gets perfectly pissed over things all the time. And if he wants to obsess over race and claim his racist rights for special protection due to skin colour ...

When the fuck did I say that people had special rights due to skin color? Are you really this fucking stupid? The point was the god-damn opposite!

Example:

He asks me

If ALL of the above was true - ALL OF IT - except that they did not have dark hair and dark eyes, would they no longer be of interest?

obviously, he tries to make here a "we against them" thing out of it. Simple minds have to oversimplify. The true answer is:

1.) If they are Caucasian (variety of hair and eyes colours though) and live in a militia bubble area like there are some in some mountain states, they would move from the box "Islamic Terrorist Hunt" to the box "Militia Terrorist Hunt"

Really? Despite them being "Muslims, frequently visiting over the period of a year certain mosques that subscribed to Wahabite teachings"?

2.) If they follow the exactly same description but live in a Hispanic bubble neighborhood (for example some places in Florida), they wouldn't be interesting at all ...

So, again, them being "Muslims, frequently visiting over the period of a year certain mosques that subscribed to Wahabite teachings" would mean nothing just because they "live in a Hispanic bubble neighborhood"?

Do you understand what "all of it - except" means? You don't, do you!?

Lydiot tries to make a point by first leading out a significant factor and then by generalizing "all other races against MINE" and that is in its very nature racist. Diversity means there are n races in an area with m cultural backgrounds and n>2 and m>2, simply that. And if a little guy drools over special rights for his ethnicity all the time at the cost for others, he fulfils the textbook definition of a racist. Even if he tries to make his racism acceptable by accusing all members of all other ethnicities of racism or racist tactics.

Again, I pointed out how people should NOT be discriminated against due to their race, NOT how people SHOULD be discriminated in favor of because of their race.

If you can't fucking understand the difference between those two things then as I said you really shouldn't be working in either law enforcement or politics. You just completely lack the intellect for it.

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot: This is a free speech forum, means, everybody can speak his mind. The difference between us is merely that I made that rule and I pay for this little corner of free speech every month, you only abuse it. But we both have the same right to speak our mind ... your repeated attempts though to construct by letting out parts and then to create from a post you ripped intentionally to pieces to reassemble them something that supports your racist agenda borders to harassment. So, I have three options ...

a.) I can withdraw ... even withdraw from my own forum or parts of it, just to stop the waste of time ... or just from this subject, claiming my right not to talk to you anymore, which is also part of my free speech rights.

b.) I can ask others to investigate your posts and mine ... and please, the usual "suspects", I didn't do that yet

c.) I can decide, that, after I got the mudslinging of misquotes and intentional deforming of what I actually said, I am fed up enough to save the money, I spend on this and that it is simply not worth it anymore.

So, I suggest strongly, we let this just stand now in the room and that's it.

J.

For fucks sake man!!!!

You straight out accuse me of being a racist and then go on the above tirade playing the victim! What are you - twelve years old?

[jwocky]

@Lydiot: Your IQ scares me ... of course, you have to exchange "mosque with Wahabite teachings" against "Christian churches with a strong background in letter by letter Bible teachings" ... maybe, your little racist brain can find a better wording for that. Bible thumpers come to mind, but that is still a little too wide worded. Your need to "construct" is overwhelming!

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot: Your IQ scares me ... of course, you have to exchange "mosque with Wahabite teachings" against "Christian churches with a strong background in letter by letter Bible teachings" ...

No, you don't, and that was the point I was making, but you're clearly too blinded by your own bias to comprehend it. Or perhaps, as I said, you just lack the intellectual capacity to figure it out.

The whole point is that the way people look isn't what is interesting, it's just a coincidence. What is interesting and worth investigating is the other stuff. That was the whole point!

How the hell can you not see that? It's mind-boggling!

maybe, your little racist brain can find a better wording for that.

It's a pretty weak attempt to divert focus from yourself by taking what you seemingly perceive you're being accused of and accuse "your opposition" of the same thing. I'm not sure who you think you're fooling right now. Your attempt is pretty shallow.

I'll say it again since you fail to comprehend it:

I don't want to be profiled due to my race AND I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO ELSE TO BE EITHER, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE!

Now do you comprehend??? Or are you still confused?

[IAHM-COL]

but isn't everyone profiled in the world, for one reason or another?



Arent the big corporations profiling you all the time to decide whether you are buyer for x or y? do you think they will morally adjust to "dont use race-it is politically incorrect" babbling?

[Lydiot]

but isn't everyone profiled in the world, for one reason or another?

Arent the big corporations profiling you all the time to decide whether you are buyer for x or y?

Surely you would agree that it's one thing for a corporation to analyze a market and then decide to target marketing according to the potential customers, and on the other hand a state's police taking action based on parameters including race or hair color and facial features? The former is a nuisance and the second not just an invasion of privacy in many cases but eerily reminiscent of policies of the past. I mean, do I really have to spell it out???

do you think they will morally adjust to "dont use race-it is politically incorrect" babbling?

First of all, no, I don't think all corporations will "morally adjust". I think some would adjust if their customers decided to campaign against straight up discrimination, not because of moral considerations but because they wouldn't want bad publicity because it could hurt sales. As far as "profiling" goes in businesses in the US there has been a big change over the past few decades with a much greater sensibility to some parameters used for profiling, including race, gender and sexual orientation.

Secondly; "babbling"? To me this is pretty much a simple either/or proposition: Either we're cool with dividing homo sapiens into races and other inherently unimportant groupings and also then treat people differently because of that, or we're not cool with it. If we're not, then I don't see how opposing it is "babbling". Could you explain just what your opinion is and why it would be "babbling"?

[Lydiot]

And by the way, since when did;

"Discriminate based on race"

become;

"Politically incorrect"

Isn't it just a matter of human rights?

[IAHM-COL]

No. I am not cool with the self-grandiose term "Homo sapiens", I prefer if we dropped the qualifiers and readapt to "Pan victoriensis spp."
But that's just me

About profiling on race: it is not a matter of human rights. For verification read:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

You will see the sickening document such declaration is. It does grant more rights to the governments to oppress people than to people to stand free of oppression. I may read the whole thing wrong but it seems to me that is how it goes after article 3. So really, if something, that declaration will argue that governments could potentially use profiling of even race to defend some patriot act.

[Lydiot]

I wasn't referring to the UN's document, I was referring to what we commonly refer to as Human Rights.

But regardless, I was asking you about your opinion.

And I second the motion to use "Pan victoriensis spp"... sounds very... 'hip'

[IAHM-COL]

my opinion. I dont like profiles. Period. But, again, that's just me.
But flip the page, and I'll say, I like to think I am a technical person. and profiles, well done, are extremely technical stuff.