Marriage wasn't based on love. Marriages were political and social arrangements. Husbands and wives were mostly strangers until they first met. Love was expected to come after the couple had been married and if it didn't, the couple would at least developed a friendship of some kind.
Parents arranged their children's marriages based on monetary worth. Children were married at a young age; girls were as young as 12, and boys as young as 17. The family of the girl gives a dowry, or donation, to the boy she is to marry. The dowry goes with her at the time of the marriage and is controlled by the boy.
not quite 7 but...............
mightve been earlier in time
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
The thread was started about a Wonder Woman film and now we're bashing muslims, i was disgusted at the comment about Muslims being pro padeos and i wasn't joking.
What's this all got to do with Wonder Woman anyway??
Now yet again I challenge you, post proof that it was common for seven year olds to marry in England. Go on.
because times change, things dont stay as they were for centuries
Things do change, but some things never happen at all. For example, Lee's typically pulled-out-of-his-arse " it wasn't uncommon for 7yrs olds to consent to marriage in medieval Britain." drivel, for which he won't post proof, as he never posts prove of any rubbish he types on the spur of the moment.
And on the other hand, some things never change at all, such as Lee's typically rubbish moderating, i.e. in this thread when Mel says:
whyve we gone from a women only showing of a film to slagging off muslims?
any half-decent moderator, who'd actually read the thread, would have said something like "No one is slagging off Muslims, or anyone else. Instead, someone has pointed out something written in the Holy Book of Islam, and it's now being debated here". But no, Lee sees that I wrote it, so he's down on it automatically, so he not only fails to point out that neither I nor anyone else is slagging off anyone, but he instead tries to make me look bad by falsely claiming that I've taken something out of context.
I think he's bagging religion in general which while has good things in it to me as a sort of self psychotherapy and meditation, it is full of vile stuff cause it's based on ~4000 year old outdated laws and views of the world. The Ten Commandments are great on the other hand stoning your male neighbor to death for wearing women's clothes or making a rape victim marry her rapist then paying off the daughters father not so great :)
Religion is a very powerful force, and it can, and does, do untold good and untold evil, depending on who is in control and what they personally want and believe. And every religion preaches that it alone knows the truth, even though not one of them can offer up an atom of proof that they are right.
It does make you wonder, if God does exist, then why doesn't he actually tell us what to believe? Instead we have various religious texts that were written over thousands of years, often based on false, superstitious beliefs, and the texts have been edited and (sometimes badly or erroneously) translated over time so even if one of them was at the time the genuine word of God, then it's present state, combined with our ability to easily misinterpret a millennia-old document, makes it a very bad way to communicate His will. As I think Richard Dawkins once said, if God did decide to tell us something, surely he'd not use something so fallible, changing over time, and prone to misinterpretation as the written word.
The thread was started about a Wonder Woman film and now we're bashing muslims, i was disgusted at the comment about Muslims being pro padeos and i wasn't joking.
What's this all got to do with Wonder Woman anyway??
Please re-read this thread. No one said that Muslin's were pro-paedophilia, and no one is bashing Muslims. If you think otherwise, then please point out where in this thread that occurs.
And no offence, but you seem to be exactly the sort of person who causes so much of the trouble in the world, with your "Oh, we mustn't criticise him, he's black/gay/an ex-criminal/etc" mindset. In this thread I have slagged off Catholicism just as much as I have slagged off Islam, but most Catholics are white, so you don't lambaste me for criticising their religion, oh no, but I point out something that IS WRITTEN IN THE KORAN, and you can't wait to have a go at me for 'attacking' them, since they are mostly non-white, even though all I have done is point out the absolute facts.
I simply pointed out what was said in the Koran. I made an unbiased statement of fact, that is all, that something was written in a certain book. No rational person could criticise someone for that. But you managed to read much more into it than that.
But go on, point out where I bashed Muslims. Where I said all Muslims are paedos, that Islam is a paedo religion, that Gary Glitter is a Mulsim, etc. But you can't, because I said nothing even remotely like that.
I did NOT say that even one single Muslim since Mohammed has been led into paedophilia by the Koran, but you choose to ignore that, and instead see something that isn't there, just so you can criticise me and have the (pathetic) self-satisfaction of deluding yourself into thinking that (a) I said something wrong and offensive, and (b) you put me right and made me realise that some facts, true though they might be, utterly relevant and ripe for discussion they might be, but if the people involved aren't white, then we should bury the truth and turn a blind eye.
But not, as you demonstrate if they're white. Otherwise you'd have had a go at me for Catholic-bashing for my saying that their God acts evil yet Catholics still blindly worship and obey the genocidal, hypocritical God. Insulting a religion's God is far, far, far more insulting that insulting a religion's God's human prophet, so in fact if I did bash Muslims in my post, then I bashed Catholics much, much more severely. Yet you didn't pull me up for that. Catholics are white, so **** em, eh?
Marriage wasn't based on love. Marriages were political and social arrangements. Husbands and wives were mostly strangers until they first met. Love was expected to come after the couple had been married and if it didn't, the couple would at least developed a friendship of some kind.
Parents arranged their children's marriages based on monetary worth. Children were married at a young age; girls were as young as 12, and boys as young as 17. The family of the girl gives a dowry, or donation, to the boy she is to marry. The dowry goes with her at the time of the marriage and is controlled by the boy.
not quite 7 but...............
mightve been earlier in time
But that doesn't say that it was common, just that it happened. People run a mile in under four minutes, but it's not common. At a minimum, I'd say Lee's statement of " it wasn't uncommon for 7yrs olds to consent to marriage in medieval Britain." to mean say 25% of marriages involved at least one seven year old (can you suggest a lower figure than 25% to mean "not uncommon"?). So yes, it did happen, but very, very rarely. It was not common at all.
I'm not replying as what i really want to say will probably earn me a ban. I'm out of here, you can continue your pointless nonsense, as you say, i'm the cause of so many of the problems in the world.
What i will say is, in your last post to my comment you seem very sure of what i will think/say, congradulations on being a mindreader. Your main problem is you cannot seem to see other people's views, you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm outta here, goodbye.
I'm not replying as what i really want to say will probably earn me a ban. I'm out of here, you can continue your pointless nonsense, as you say, i'm the cause of so many of the problems in the world.
What i will say is, in your last post to my comment you seem very sure of what i will think/say, congradulations on being a mindreader. Your main problem is you cannot seem to see other people's views, you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm outta here, goodbye.
Nah don't be daft mate. This is just tinfoil-hat theories, politics & religion. All 3 subjects equally not worth giving any dam about, well I don't anyway. Have a drink and ignore the non-sense.
I'm not replying as what i really want to say will probably earn me a ban. I'm out of here, you can continue your pointless nonsense, as you say, i'm the cause of so many of the problems in the world.
What i will say is, in your last post to my comment you seem very sure of what i will think/say, congradulations on being a mindreader. Your main problem is you cannot seem to see other people's views, you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm outta here, goodbye.
Sadly, your absence from this thread won't diminish the harm you and the overly noisey, clueless, racist-in-an-overcompensating- minority of people like you cause in the world. And I don't have to be a mind-reader to see the obvious. And as for my not seeing other people's views, you can't even tell a genuine fact from a bash-all-members-of-a-minority-attack, you're so convinced that you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong, however strong the evidence is. For example, I know for a fact that you wouldn't have bothered checking if what I said about the Koran was right, which any intelligent, reasonable person would have, because Muslims are mainly black or Arabic so to you they're beyond reproach. You wouldn't want to criticise a minority, would you?
You should become a mod here. You'd fit right in with their mindset.
I'm not replying as what i really want to say will probably earn me a ban. I'm out of here, you can continue your pointless nonsense, as you say, i'm the cause of so many of the problems in the world.
What i will say is, in your last post to my comment you seem very sure of what i will think/say, congradulations on being a mindreader. Your main problem is you cannot seem to see other people's views, you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm outta here, goodbye.
Nah don't be daft mate. This is just tinfoil-hat theories, politics & religion. All 3 subjects equally not worth giving any dam about, well I don't anyway. Have a drink and ignore the non-sense.
There are no tin-foil theories here, everything I said is fact. You don't have to believe me, but the proof is there, just open a Koran, if you're interested enough to join the debate. If not then fine, religion and politics do lead to arguments, but in this case it's fact, and has been literally written down for around forteen hundred years, and has been endlessly discussed in books, lectures, and even the internet.
Just don't do what reverse-racists like ZX1 do when confronted with something that goes against their blinkered views, and deny it, try to smear the person who dares to use proveb facts, and in the end skulk away whilst trying to make out that you have the moral high-ground. There's enough people like him already.
ewgf seems to be wanting a ban for some reason. As for marriage at young ages - Richard II?
In what way am I asking for a ban? Nothing I have said is untrue, spend ten minutes on the net, check enough sites so you know that the first ones you found aren't just run by idiots or racists who for whatever reason have inserted false stuff into an online text version of the Koran, and you'll see that it does say that. That doesn't mean that Muslims follow Mohammed in that respect, and I'm quite sure that Islam's religious teachers are asked constantly about it and why it should be acceptable, leaving the students unconvinced (since there is no good answer), the same as when, for example, a Christian student asks a priest "Why, if God is all powerful and all good, does he allow evil, and suffering, and ignorance in the world?".
Richard II was only one person. Not quite proof of a large percentage of the population being in the same boat. Plus royalty does tend to marry more for power and position (and to cement alliances between kingdoms) than for love, and also they can tend to interbreed as they "don't want to water down their special-ness with common stock". The Roman emporers and their families interbred a lot, supposedly, since they thought that they were semi-divine, and again didn't want to water that down with by breeding with common people.
But that doesn't say that it was common, just that it happened. People run a mile in under four minutes, but it's not common. At a minimum, I'd say Lee's statement of " it wasn't uncommon for 7yrs olds to consent to marriage in medieval Britain." to mean say 25% of marriages involved at least one seven year old (can you suggest a lower figure than 25% to mean "not uncommon"?). So yes, it did happen, but very, very rarely. It was not common at all.
so now youre arguing semantics to make out islam is worse, no sorry it doesnt happen like that, you asked for proof you got proof stop moving the goalposts....it happened whether its common or not
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
I said i wouldn't respond but just who do you think you are callng me a racist???
DO NOT make an enemy of me, i am warning you for the first and only time - perhaps it's time you shut up and stopped posting rambling, nonesence on this post and went to a site that would out up with your garbage.
I have done no damage - i didn't start the post YOU DID!!!!!
YOU ARE THE ONE CAUSING PROBLEMS!
And that attack has now become personal - you clearly need help, i'm off to bed as i have better things to do than argue with an idiot like you.
And yes, you should be banned keyboard warrior.
But that doesn't say that it was common, just that it happened. People run a mile in under four minutes, but it's not common. At a minimum, I'd say Lee's statement of " it wasn't uncommon for 7yrs olds to consent to marriage in medieval Britain." to mean say 25% of marriages involved at least one seven year old (can you suggest a lower figure than 25% to mean "not uncommon"?). So yes, it did happen, but very, very rarely. It was not common at all.
so now youre arguing semantics to make out islam is worse, no sorry it doesnt happen like that, you asked for proof you got proof stop moving the goalposts....it happened whether its common or not
1) First of all, that was not proof. It didn't mention the percent of people it applied to. Proof in this case would prove that it was "not uncommon", but no figures are mentioned, so IT'S NOT PROOF.
2) I'm not arguing semantics, and I'm not trying make out that Islam is "any worse" [than what, exactly?]
3) Go on, prove that you say. I have asked for proof several times, and no one has yet posted any. Post where I bash Muslims, where I try to make out that Islam is worse than [something], and post figures that SAY WHAT PERCENTAGE of marriages involving children took place, if there are no figures then it proves it happen
4). I said "Now yet again I challenge you, post proof that it was common for seven year olds to marry in England. Go on." It contained the word "Common". Your 'proof' does not mention percentages or any other figures, so it's NOT PROOF.
I said i wouldn't respond but just who do you think you are callng me a racist???
DO NOT make an enemy of me, i am warning you for the first and only time - perhaps it's time you shut up and stopped posting rambling, nonesence on this post and went to a site that would out up with your garbage.
I have done no damage - i didn't start the post YOU DID!!!!!
YOU ARE THE ONE CAUSING PROBLEMS!
How am I causing problems? Everything I've said is factual and relevant. It's noticeable that even though some people have slagged me off here, none of them has presumably checked that the Koran says what I say it did, or surely that person would say so in this thread. Instead, I said something (which is true) about a minority group, and you assume that I'm a member of the BNP (even though I hate Nick Griffin) and that I hate anyone who isn't purely English (even though no one is). Do you want to tell me how that's fair, because I don't see it?
But yes, I shouldn't resort to name-calling and for that I apologise. But your conduct is hardly model either, calling my posts garbage and nonsense, without even spending a few minutes to actually verify them first. So please quote here and now where I said Muslims were pro-paedophiles. Go on. I didn't say it, but prove me wrong. Otherwise admit that you were wrong.
And please explain to me why you chose to find offence when none was given to a mainly non-white group, but were happy to let the same non-offence pass for a white group, and also why you think that I shouldn't be allowed to point out what a Muslim book says, when that same books is read by all practising Muslims and is available to anyone at many shops throughout Britain.
Actually, since this thread has reached the stage that every political/religious/anything even fairly contentious thread seems to reach on this forum, if any mod wants to close or delete it, then please do so;
And Mel, Lee, ZX1 and everyone else, I apologise for losing my temper (partly down to sciatica, the resulting lack of sleep, and my not-too-magnificent people skills), but I stand by what I say, though not entirely in how I said it. And I certainly wasn't trying to rubbish Muslims, I was pointing out how criticism of them is automatically seen as being racially motivated and as having no basis in fact, in the eyes of so much of the British media and middle class), and the proof of all I've said is there if you want to look.
Sorry ewgf I'm normally quite open minded, when you post your debate style threads (disregarding the joke I made above, sorry I couldn't resist that, far too easy), but after that I took the time to continue reading the rest of the thread), and it may just be a bad choice of wording on your part, but using the term "Reverse-Racist", or "Reverse-Racism" much like the comparing somebody to Hitler online you've insta-failed your own thread.
There is no such thing as Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Racism is pretty much a secondary term for people who are Racist, taking offense to the people they're being Racist against having a say about what they're saying. I know you like evidence for such things, and I know you like history, so for as a historian style answer if you want a small amount of secondary evidence watch the film "Higher Learning", it's not at all factual, but it does have a prime example of a quiet white person Remi who has been manipulated by neo-nazis, because he's vulnerable, using the term Reverse-Racism, against a black man Malik for his way of thinking, of course Remi then calls Malik a "Coon" completely invalidating what he was saying anyway. Like I say from a historians view this would be secondary evidence, absolutely not primary evidence, but to me it's a good example. The film is set in the 90's, so I suppose it's almost historical now.
Plus once again, as things were calming down again on WOS, do we really need to be taking potshots at each other, this community has been shook like a snow globe over the last few years, we need to stick together rather than tearing f*cking strips off each other.
I think this thread should be closed before it gets any worse, people have different opinions and that is fine, but turning any anger from whatever caused it, towards others, is not a good idea. There is stuff going on all of the time which riles us up, but we only get told what to believe, instead of allowed to think for ourselves. So any judgements and opinions are not ours in the first place, we are all mindless sheep, eating grass and shitting, the flat Earth still spins, oh no of course it stays still, and we grow older day by day, watching fake news and soaps and eating. Will we ever learn ?
Every time I read that the oldest person in the world has died, I have to do a quick check to see it isn't ME..........
Comments
http://www.medievalfayre.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&
not quite 7 but...............
mightve been earlier in time
What's this all got to do with Wonder Woman anyway??
Things do change, but some things never happen at all. For example, Lee's typically pulled-out-of-his-arse " it wasn't uncommon for 7yrs olds to consent to marriage in medieval Britain." drivel, for which he won't post proof, as he never posts prove of any rubbish he types on the spur of the moment.
And on the other hand, some things never change at all, such as Lee's typically rubbish moderating, i.e. in this thread when Mel says:
any half-decent moderator, who'd actually read the thread, would have said something like "No one is slagging off Muslims, or anyone else. Instead, someone has pointed out something written in the Holy Book of Islam, and it's now being debated here". But no, Lee sees that I wrote it, so he's down on it automatically, so he not only fails to point out that neither I nor anyone else is slagging off anyone, but he instead tries to make me look bad by falsely claiming that I've taken something out of context.
It does make you wonder, if God does exist, then why doesn't he actually tell us what to believe? Instead we have various religious texts that were written over thousands of years, often based on false, superstitious beliefs, and the texts have been edited and (sometimes badly or erroneously) translated over time so even if one of them was at the time the genuine word of God, then it's present state, combined with our ability to easily misinterpret a millennia-old document, makes it a very bad way to communicate His will. As I think Richard Dawkins once said, if God did decide to tell us something, surely he'd not use something so fallible, changing over time, and prone to misinterpretation as the written word.
Please re-read this thread. No one said that Muslin's were pro-paedophilia, and no one is bashing Muslims. If you think otherwise, then please point out where in this thread that occurs.
And no offence, but you seem to be exactly the sort of person who causes so much of the trouble in the world, with your "Oh, we mustn't criticise him, he's black/gay/an ex-criminal/etc" mindset. In this thread I have slagged off Catholicism just as much as I have slagged off Islam, but most Catholics are white, so you don't lambaste me for criticising their religion, oh no, but I point out something that IS WRITTEN IN THE KORAN, and you can't wait to have a go at me for 'attacking' them, since they are mostly non-white, even though all I have done is point out the absolute facts.
I simply pointed out what was said in the Koran. I made an unbiased statement of fact, that is all, that something was written in a certain book. No rational person could criticise someone for that. But you managed to read much more into it than that.
But go on, point out where I bashed Muslims. Where I said all Muslims are paedos, that Islam is a paedo religion, that Gary Glitter is a Mulsim, etc. But you can't, because I said nothing even remotely like that.
I did NOT say that even one single Muslim since Mohammed has been led into paedophilia by the Koran, but you choose to ignore that, and instead see something that isn't there, just so you can criticise me and have the (pathetic) self-satisfaction of deluding yourself into thinking that (a) I said something wrong and offensive, and (b) you put me right and made me realise that some facts, true though they might be, utterly relevant and ripe for discussion they might be, but if the people involved aren't white, then we should bury the truth and turn a blind eye.
But not, as you demonstrate if they're white. Otherwise you'd have had a go at me for Catholic-bashing for my saying that their God acts evil yet Catholics still blindly worship and obey the genocidal, hypocritical God. Insulting a religion's God is far, far, far more insulting that insulting a religion's God's human prophet, so in fact if I did bash Muslims in my post, then I bashed Catholics much, much more severely. Yet you didn't pull me up for that. Catholics are white, so **** em, eh?
And you criticise me?
But that doesn't say that it was common, just that it happened. People run a mile in under four minutes, but it's not common. At a minimum, I'd say Lee's statement of " it wasn't uncommon for 7yrs olds to consent to marriage in medieval Britain." to mean say 25% of marriages involved at least one seven year old (can you suggest a lower figure than 25% to mean "not uncommon"?). So yes, it did happen, but very, very rarely. It was not common at all.
JSpeccy-win32-portable
What i will say is, in your last post to my comment you seem very sure of what i will think/say, congradulations on being a mindreader. Your main problem is you cannot seem to see other people's views, you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm outta here, goodbye.
Nah don't be daft mate. This is just tinfoil-hat theories, politics & religion. All 3 subjects equally not worth giving any dam about, well I don't anyway. Have a drink and ignore the non-sense.
Sadly, your absence from this thread won't diminish the harm you and the overly noisey, clueless, racist-in-an-overcompensating- minority of people like you cause in the world. And I don't have to be a mind-reader to see the obvious. And as for my not seeing other people's views, you can't even tell a genuine fact from a bash-all-members-of-a-minority-attack, you're so convinced that you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong, however strong the evidence is. For example, I know for a fact that you wouldn't have bothered checking if what I said about the Koran was right, which any intelligent, reasonable person would have, because Muslims are mainly black or Arabic so to you they're beyond reproach. You wouldn't want to criticise a minority, would you?
You should become a mod here. You'd fit right in with their mindset.
There are no tin-foil theories here, everything I said is fact. You don't have to believe me, but the proof is there, just open a Koran, if you're interested enough to join the debate. If not then fine, religion and politics do lead to arguments, but in this case it's fact, and has been literally written down for around forteen hundred years, and has been endlessly discussed in books, lectures, and even the internet.
Just don't do what reverse-racists like ZX1 do when confronted with something that goes against their blinkered views, and deny it, try to smear the person who dares to use proveb facts, and in the end skulk away whilst trying to make out that you have the moral high-ground. There's enough people like him already.
JSpeccy-win32-portable
In what way am I asking for a ban? Nothing I have said is untrue, spend ten minutes on the net, check enough sites so you know that the first ones you found aren't just run by idiots or racists who for whatever reason have inserted false stuff into an online text version of the Koran, and you'll see that it does say that. That doesn't mean that Muslims follow Mohammed in that respect, and I'm quite sure that Islam's religious teachers are asked constantly about it and why it should be acceptable, leaving the students unconvinced (since there is no good answer), the same as when, for example, a Christian student asks a priest "Why, if God is all powerful and all good, does he allow evil, and suffering, and ignorance in the world?".
Richard II was only one person. Not quite proof of a large percentage of the population being in the same boat. Plus royalty does tend to marry more for power and position (and to cement alliances between kingdoms) than for love, and also they can tend to interbreed as they "don't want to water down their special-ness with common stock". The Roman emporers and their families interbred a lot, supposedly, since they thought that they were semi-divine, and again didn't want to water that down with by breeding with common people.
DO NOT make an enemy of me, i am warning you for the first and only time - perhaps it's time you shut up and stopped posting rambling, nonesence on this post and went to a site that would out up with your garbage.
I have done no damage - i didn't start the post YOU DID!!!!!
YOU ARE THE ONE CAUSING PROBLEMS!
And yes, you should be banned keyboard warrior.
1) First of all, that was not proof. It didn't mention the percent of people it applied to. Proof in this case would prove that it was "not uncommon", but no figures are mentioned, so IT'S NOT PROOF.
2) I'm not arguing semantics, and I'm not trying make out that Islam is "any worse" [than what, exactly?]
3) Go on, prove that you say. I have asked for proof several times, and no one has yet posted any. Post where I bash Muslims, where I try to make out that Islam is worse than [something], and post figures that SAY WHAT PERCENTAGE of marriages involving children took place, if there are no figures then it proves it happen
4). I said "Now yet again I challenge you, post proof that it was common for seven year olds to marry in England. Go on." It contained the word "Common". Your 'proof' does not mention percentages or any other figures, so it's NOT PROOF.
How am I causing problems? Everything I've said is factual and relevant. It's noticeable that even though some people have slagged me off here, none of them has presumably checked that the Koran says what I say it did, or surely that person would say so in this thread. Instead, I said something (which is true) about a minority group, and you assume that I'm a member of the BNP (even though I hate Nick Griffin) and that I hate anyone who isn't purely English (even though no one is). Do you want to tell me how that's fair, because I don't see it?
But yes, I shouldn't resort to name-calling and for that I apologise. But your conduct is hardly model either, calling my posts garbage and nonsense, without even spending a few minutes to actually verify them first. So please quote here and now where I said Muslims were pro-paedophiles. Go on. I didn't say it, but prove me wrong. Otherwise admit that you were wrong.
And please explain to me why you chose to find offence when none was given to a mainly non-white group, but were happy to let the same non-offence pass for a white group, and also why you think that I shouldn't be allowed to point out what a Muslim book says, when that same books is read by all practising Muslims and is available to anyone at many shops throughout Britain.
And Mel, Lee, ZX1 and everyone else, I apologise for losing my temper (partly down to sciatica, the resulting lack of sleep, and my not-too-magnificent people skills), but I stand by what I say, though not entirely in how I said it. And I certainly wasn't trying to rubbish Muslims, I was pointing out how criticism of them is automatically seen as being racially motivated and as having no basis in fact, in the eyes of so much of the British media and middle class), and the proof of all I've said is there if you want to look.
JSpeccy-win32-portable
Look at Middlesborough in the 60's and 70's....
Did I go too far? :))
Sorry ewgf I'm normally quite open minded, when you post your debate style threads (disregarding the joke I made above, sorry I couldn't resist that, far too easy), but after that I took the time to continue reading the rest of the thread), and it may just be a bad choice of wording on your part, but using the term "Reverse-Racist", or "Reverse-Racism" much like the comparing somebody to Hitler online you've insta-failed your own thread.
There is no such thing as Reverse-Racism, Reverse-Racism is pretty much a secondary term for people who are Racist, taking offense to the people they're being Racist against having a say about what they're saying. I know you like evidence for such things, and I know you like history, so for as a historian style answer if you want a small amount of secondary evidence watch the film "Higher Learning", it's not at all factual, but it does have a prime example of a quiet white person Remi who has been manipulated by neo-nazis, because he's vulnerable, using the term Reverse-Racism, against a black man Malik for his way of thinking, of course Remi then calls Malik a "Coon" completely invalidating what he was saying anyway. Like I say from a historians view this would be secondary evidence, absolutely not primary evidence, but to me it's a good example. The film is set in the 90's, so I suppose it's almost historical now.
Plus once again, as things were calming down again on WOS, do we really need to be taking potshots at each other, this community has been shook like a snow globe over the last few years, we need to stick together rather than tearing f*cking strips off each other.
Have faith in the establishment, they will ensure (Soviet style) we all live happily ever after.
Pay your taxes and do as you are told!
I cant believe the 'racism' of some people...
I did wonder how long it would take for a comment like this lol... I was thinking of something along the same lines as I was reading this thread :D
1.NO Politics
2.NO Religion
MODS please lock or delete this thread and let everyone calm the f.u.c.k down.
Lets talk about dead celebs and what music we are listening to instead.