| sapphi_snake said: @mantlepiecek: No they aren't. You are assuming it. They actually admitted that that's the purpose, in case you haven't read the article (not to mention tha tthat would be the result, regardless of what their intentions are). Accept now they are. Funny stuff that you think discrimination can only happen if there's no justification for it. How are they discriminated against? Is the Klu Klux Klan discriminated against because they can't hold a white supremacy parade? The reason is irrelevant. There's no reason for discrimination like I already said (funny how you don't grasp this..). The reason behind straight pride parade is hardly supremacy. Parades are held for different reasons. Do you even know what parades mean? What I am grasping is that you're not grasping anything. The reason and circumstances represent anything, and precisely because of those there is no discrimination against straight people going on. Yep. If one group parades for a particular reason, the other group can parade for a different reason. "Supremacy" lmao. Yes. One group (gays) parades to express their pride in their sexuality despite the persecution of heterosexuals. Another group (heterosexists) parades to bash gays. Is that so? Hmm...so according to this logic we should all ban Islams from America and other countries since majority of the terrorists are Islams...And we should always think about it in as a group not individually. I mean Islams are a group.....
Is that correct? Not only does this show you did not understand what I said, but you've also now expressed your Islamophobia. Congratulations (again)! The majority of terrorists aren't even muslims. Hahahahaha
Your statement proves that you know nothing about life and how it works. Everyone at that time was conquering countries and regions not just the whites. It would be completely hipocritical of anyone to blame the whites. The whites (or the Britishers) were just better at it than the others. No, actually it was whites who at the time were the only ones conquering other territories. They were the ones who created colonies, destroyed local cultures etc. And I'm quite sure the US is completely responsable for the fact that part of it's citizens (the black ones) were enslaved for centuries, and guess what? They're currently compensating for it (affirmative action, etc.)! |
I have two very good islamic friends so I am obviously islamophobic. /sarcasm.
Sure maybe I am wrong about the majority thing, but they certainly are the most persistant ones and the ones that are spread throughout the world. Also they conduct terrorism for religious purposes(or at least derived from it) and I meant it in a purely religion way but realised there are other terrorists as well so you are right. I don't know any other group of terrorists doing it for religion other than christians and they don't do it that much anymore.
No, actually it was whites who at the time were the only ones conquering other territories. They were the ones who created colonies, destroyed local cultures etc. And I'm quite sure the US is completely responsable for the fact that part of it's citizens (the black ones) were enslaved for centuries, and guess what? They're currently compensating for it (affirmative action, etc.)!
Is Genghis Khan a white? Say it.....
Are the japanese western? Are the chinese considered as whites?
Only whites uh....and yet there are other people like muslim rulers who have done similar stuff. Conquering nations was done by a lot of nations/territories. The european nations did it a lot as well.
Also your logic is fail once again. Lets say Mr. X's father killed Mr. Y's father. In such a case Mr. X is not responsible for Mr. Y. Simple really. Are are you going to say that this is individuality? lmao it makes no difference so hopefully you will say something else.
Is the Klu Klux Klan discriminated against because they can't hold a white supremacy parade?
So the straight population is the klu klux klan? Or even comparable?
They actually admitted that that's the purpose, in case you haven't read the article (not to mention tha tthat would be the result, regardless of what their intentions are).
Is that so? So they said that they want to show off their supremacy? Ok show the proof by quoting them.
@Bolded
Yeah because there is absolutely no other circumstance possible..
(that's sarcasm)
