Jamaican Father Cuts Daughter Out Of His Will For Having A Baby By A White Man But Judge Overrides H

Based Jesus · Feb 27, 2015

Oh boy pt. 2

1. I find it absolutely hilarious that you would bring up the fact that the man is canadian to somehow illegitimatize me bringing up my grandfathers when

   a. YOU brought them up first.

   b. YOU also brought up your grandfather and his experiences afterwards.

   c. I said the same thing to you earlier and used my grandparents to prove the point that your grandfathers experiences didn't necessarily speak for this man or any black person who isn't an African-American.

   d. If you'd like I could use my numerous aunts, uncles and cousins who live or have lived in Canada instead of my grandfathers. **** my grandmother is buried right in Calgary. Feel free to take a trip there and summon her from the grave and ask her how she feels about white people.

2. Ditto

3. I'll concede on the justification thing simply because I'm not gonna argue semantics. What I will say is, next time you need to make a point, don't make assumptions of the character of someone's dead relatives. Like I said before, it's callous.

@ birds of a feather. I aint eem gonna bother with that remark.

htg designs · Feb 27, 2015

Oldie but goodie.
dont got nothing to do with nothing

hand2handking · Feb 28, 2015

no, history proves the most powerful were racist. Look at all the progressive movements throughout history and most of them were not racist.

Even during slavery europe was very progressive in race relations. American culture and industry relied on a certain race relation to maintain the status quo.

Racism as a control mechanism was stronger in places it needed to be, and less strong in places it had no use.

the highly intelligent can see this objectively, while lower intelligent people's views and lifestyles are culturally subjective.

a) the most powerful = highest status = highest intelligence

b) racism is not a progressive idea, so a progressive movement would not include racism

c) outside of the us is irrelevant to this

d) europe was racist then and it is now

e) "certain" american race relation = racism!

f) "stronger" in places it "needed" to "be" = racism, slavery! it "needed" to "be" "stronger" in "those places" because there was profit in it!!!

g) objectivity is not a hallmark of intelligence, you seem to be assuming that higher intelligence=higher objectivity=not racist

everyone's view is subjective, even ppl who pretend to be objective. furthermore, the issue of racism cant be based on objective measures, precisely because it is such a subjective issue.

yes. The world was not run by the most intelligent and objective people..it was run by the most powerful and influential.

Even when an intelligent and enlightened person had power...the only way to maintain it is to separate intelligent objective actions from profitable, lucrative, and self endorsing actions

a) power and influence = intelligence and status. you made intelligence the measure by which to go, and then tried to switch it with objectivity.

b) this is all largely irrelevant.... but for arguments sake, you created a hypothetical in which this "leader" has to choose b/w objectivity or subjectivity to prove what? that people in power put themselves (subjectivity) above all else (objectivity)?

Imagine the royal families in europe when christianity was at it's height. They practiced the religion to maintain control.
Some kings may have truly believed, but I doubt most truly did.

That did not stop them from using religious context to hurt, oppress, and conquer people.

If you would have compared a kings belief in jesus to that of a peasant... the peasant would be a more fervent follower of the ideology, while the king would be having threesomes and getting faded behind scenes.

this is just more irrelevance, but lets go:

a) is racism a religion? to be actively or passively engaged in?

b) if anything youre advocating the use of religion in place of racism of the higher classes to unite the lower classes, which is what i said before

My point is the idea that the more you know and understand the true nature of certain "mechanisms" the more likely you are to not truly believe in it.

Whether or not you practice it for the benefit it provides.

and here it is, the crux:

a) explain to me the difference b/w truly believing and practicing, and the relevance b/w the 2.

Pay attention to the second sentence:

*Education and Experience has the effect of making some people able to understand and use racism for their benefit...

while also having the side effect of bringing about realization of the actualities of race relations thus making some people less racist

so objectivity is now a side effect of intelligence? so seeing that races are equal is only a byproduct of general white "intelligence", that otherwise can be accepted or ignored based on subjective reasoning?

I believe the higher a person's intelligence, the less likely they are to be racist.

less intelligence correlates with dogmatic racism

morality, objectivity, opportunity and culture

so now there is a distinction b/w "dogmatic" racism and im assuming "pragmatic" racism of those with higher intelligence?

"pragmatic" being those who dont necessarily believe verbatim, but still "practice" out of recognition/acceptance of benefits?

morality, objectivity, opportunity and culture are your reasons for someone of higher intelligence to not be racist, but a higher intelligence has no/very little correlation with any of morality, objectivity, opportunity or culture.

gwap · Feb 28, 2015

a) the most powerful = highest status = highest intelligence

b) racism is not a progressive idea, so a progressive movement would not include racism

c) outside of the us is irrelevant to this

d) europe was racist then and it is now

e) "certain" american race relation = racism!

f) "stronger" in places it "needed" to "be" = racism, slavery! it "needed" to "be" "stronger" in "those places" because there was profit in it!!!

g) objectivity is not a hallmark of intelligence, you seem to be assuming that higher intelligence=higher objectivity=not racist

everyone's view is subjective, even ppl who pretend to be objective. furthermore, the issue of racism cant be based on objective measures, precisely because it is such a subjective issue.

a) wrong... power and status do not always = higher intelligence especially when we are talking about past generations where objective/progressive ideas were shunned and you would be persecuted for breaking the status quo....

b) that was my whole point...

c) I was using an analogy to compare industry and culture and how it relates to the prevelence of institutionalized racism...

d) in my analogy I was comparing the jim crow/slavery etc. in america to the progressive ideals that allowed more rights to blacks and other minorities in europe... in the 1800's you would live a better life in europe than america because the mechanism of racism wasnt as strong due to the aforementioned industry and culture differences

e) yes... that is my whole point

f) that was my whole point

( in my analogy I was comparing the jim crow/slavery etc. in america to the progressive ideals that allowed more rights to blacks and other minorities in europe... in the 1800's you would live a better life in europe than america because the mechanism of racism wasnt as strong due to the aforementioned industry and culture differences)

g) objectivity is a definite hallmark of intelligence, being able to transcend the engrained cultural norms and dogmatic beliefs in order to develop ideas and perception on objwective reasoning is significant in relation to intelligence

a) power and influence = intelligence and status. you made intelligence the measure by which to go, and then tried to switch it with objectivity.

b) ~~this is all largely irrelevant~~.... but for arguments sake, you created a hypothetical in which this "leader" has to choose b/w objectivity or subjectivity to prove what? that people in power put themselves (subjectivity) above all else (objectivity)?

a) objectivity directly correlates with intelligence like i stated above

b) people in power tend to make decisions based on what will keep them in power and what will benefit them. an Intelligent leader may not not make objective and righteous decisions even if they know better. The resulting effect of a leader's decision tends more of a factor in their choice than the objectivity/subjectivity of that decision. This was the whole point of the hate group analogy and the analogy of the christian king.

and here it is, the crux:
a) explain to me the difference b/w truly believing and practicing, and the relevance b/w the 2.

a) believing means you believe something to be true. Practicing something just means you engage in a behavior.I already referenced this with the christian king and hate group analogy.

so objectivity is now a side effect of intelligence? so seeing that races are equal is only a byproduct of general white "intelligence", that otherwise can be accepted or ignored based on subjective reasoning?

a) yes objectivity correlates with intelligence. The rest of this post is grammatically incoherent. Please rewrite it.

a) so now there is a distinction b/w "dogmatic" racism and im assuming "pragmatic" racism of those with higher intelligence?

b) "pragmatic" being those who dont necessarily believe verbatim, but still "practice" out of recognition/acceptance of benefits?

c) morality, objectivity, opportunity and culture are your reasons for someone of higher intelligence to not be racist, but a higher intelligence has no/very little correlation with any of morality, objectivity, opportunity or culture.

a) yes. once again. This is the whole point of the christian king and hate group analogies.

b) ok

c) once again . higher intelligence does correlate with the ability to reason objectively. the ability to reason objectively has a profound influence on the perceptions of culture morality and obviously opportunity.

I'll link to some sources that support my viewpoint.

You can respond with your sources and then we can compare.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...human/is-racism-just-a-form-of-stupidity.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...acism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2015

a) wrong... power and status do not always = higher intelligence especially when we are talking about past generations where objective/progressive ideas were shunned and you would be persecuted for breaking the status quo....

b) that was my whole point...

c) I was using an analogy to compare industry and culture and how it relates to the prevelence of institutionalized racism...

d) in my analogy I was comparing the jim crow/slavery etc. in america to the progressive ideals that allowed more rights to blacks and other minorities in europe... in the 1800's you would live a better life in europe than america because the mechanism of racism wasnt as strong due to the aforementioned industry and culture differences

e) yes... that is my whole point

f) that was my whole point

( in my analogy I was comparing the jim crow/slavery etc. in america to the progressive ideals that allowed more rights to blacks and other minorities in europe... in the 1800's you would live a better life in europe than america because the mechanism of racism wasnt as strong due to the aforementioned industry and culture differences)

g) objectivity is a definite hallmark of intelligence, being able to transcend the engrained cultural norms and dogmatic beliefs in order to develop ideas and perception on objwective reasoning is significant in relation to intelligence

a) objectivity directly correlates with intelligence like i stated above

b) people in power tend to make decisions based on what will keep them in power and what will benefit them. an Intelligent leader may not not make objective and righteous decisions even if they know better. The resulting effect of a leader's decision tends more of a factor in their choice than the objectivity/subjectivity of that decision. This was the whole point of the hate group analogy and the analogy of the christian king.

a) believing means you believe something to be true. Practicing something just means you engage in a behavior.I already referenced this with the christian king and hate group analogy.

so objectivity is now a side effect of intelligence? so seeing that races are equal is only a byproduct of general white "intelligence", that otherwise can be accepted or ignored based on subjective reasoning?

Click to expand...

a) yes objectivity correlates with intelligence. The rest of this post is grammatically incoherent. Please rewrite it.

a) yes. once again. This is the whole point of the christian king and hate group analogies.

b) ok

c) once again . higher intelligence does correlate with the ability to reason objectively. the ability to reason objectively has a profound influence on the perceptions of culture morality and obviously opportunity.

a) your analogy, once again, only proves my point on a micro and macro level.

b) see A above

c) once again, correlation does not equal causation. the same way objectivity can "influence perceptions of culture, morality and opportunity", SUBJECTIVITY has a higher correlation with creating those "perceptions".

gwap · Mar 1, 2015

You keep running in circles when my previous statements:

a) have already addressed your response

b) were given in support of a viewpoint that you are regurgitating as though i was stating opposite

a) you're assuming that progressive=objective, which is not true.

You completely lost the point of the issue we were debating for this subpoint.

It was about intelligence, leadership,policies, industry, racism and their relationship towards each other

This was not about progressive=objective. I never stated that progressive = objective.

Please quote me if i did.

b) youre agreeing with me

then why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with????

c) again, youre agreeing with me

then why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with????

d) this discussion started off talking about america, you brought up europe, and even still you dont admit of the racism of europe in the past. they were not progressive, they INTRODUCED slavery to the new world. it was not until the american revolution that slavery became unprofitable for european countries, which is why they switched to the INDUSTRIAL mode in order to compete.

I specifically talking about the affect that industry/culture had in relation to the prevelence of racism... it's as though you didn't even understand the point you are arguing against?!?!?!?!? I never said europe was not racist. I was comparing a time period and how the racism was different in two different countries as a direct reflection of industry/culture.

e) again, youre agreeing with me

then why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with it????

g) listen, objectivity does not grant anyone the ability to not still think subjectively. even if someone is intelligent enough to think theyre being objective, they still have the CHOICE to think subjectively. its not as if once you reach the level of thinking objectively, that all of a sudden you cant think SUBJECTIVELY anymore.

My christian king and hate group analogy already states this.

why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with it????

a) correlation does not mean causation

sometimes correlation does indicate causation.

b) you just said it. an INTELLIGENT leader may not make OBJECTIVE decisions. why? because at the end of the day, he is still going to think SUBJECTIVELY, as to what suits him best. an INTELLIGENT leader INTELLIGENT enough to think objectively has to think objectively, because it would be UNINTELLIGENT not to do so right? once again, youre agreeing with me.

My christian king and hate group analogy already states this.

why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with it????

a) so seeing that races are equal is only a byproduct of general white intelligence? said byproduct can be accepted or ignored. since objective reasoning would say that objectively, all races are equal, then that only leaves SUBJECTIVE reasoning, which one can accept or deny that all races are equal. get it now?

is this a question or a statement?

the first part about "general white intelligence"... is that your viewpoint? or are you implying that it's mine?

I think you responded to my statement about intelligence and objective reasoning before you actually spent time coming up with your own theory on this idea.

Your response seems like it was only built off the statements I gave you, rather than you own ideas.

So when you respond, it looks as if you don't even know how to address the variables that I spoke on, intelligence, objectivity, morality, culture, opportunity...... you think it's a single fork in the road for racism... spending so much time speaking on objectivity/subjectivity that you miss the whole point.

a) your analogy, once again, only proves my point on a micro and macro level.

then why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with it????

b) see A above

then why did you even try to argue the initial analogy that you already agreed with it????

c) once again, correlation does not equal causation. the same way objectivity can "influence perceptions of culture, morality and opportunity", SUBJECTIVITY has a higher correlation with creating those "perceptions".

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...human/is-racism-just-a-form-of-stupidity.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...acism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand

science agrees with my viewpoint though... can you post sources for your view?

Please don't say I agree with you anymore, I posted the initial analogy that YOU disagreed with...

if you later agree with me just concede the point

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2015

you created your analogy to say that majority of less intelligent whites are racist, as if the more intelligent one is, the less likely they are to be racist.

i showed you, through your own analogy, how this is not the case.

how whites at the top (of society or hate groups) are just as racist as those at the bottom, and the ones in the middle have reason to lean towards it.

your analogy backfired on you.

then it was how the most intelligent are a minority, yet the minority at the top, you argued is not racist.

tried to say that the leaders of hate groups work with other races, IN PRISON, as if that is evidence of them not being entirely racist.

you then tried to make it an issue of intelligence vs objectivity, as if objectivity is the key to not being racist, or intelligence is what it takes to identify that all people are equal.

i showed you how objectivity is not relevant or applicable based on the idea of racism being a SUBJECTIVE issue, down to each individuals choice.

you brought up europe, and i showed you how even europe wasnt PROGRESSIVE or OBJECTIVE in their reasoning for doing away with slavery.

keep making my points for me tho

gwap · Mar 1, 2015

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...human/is-racism-just-a-form-of-stupidity.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...acism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand

GWAP said:
the hate group analogy was an EXAMPLE of heirarchy and intelligence as it relates to racist beliefs vs. racist mechanisms....

The analogy was about the machanism of racism... you have only agreed with it ever sense it was explained

I was explaining THE MECHANISM OF RACISM.

Belief and practice..... objective understanding vs dogmatic belief.... these were the themes that you fail at addressing....

Then you try to act as though I was agreeing with you....

you were arguing before you even knew what you were arguing against

Science already supports my view on intelligence and racism...

i was just using analogies to help you understand different aspects of the issue...

you spent all your time arguing because you misunderstood the analogies...lol

objectivty is of course relevent. Because if you don't have a societal/cultural/or opportunistic mechanism that goes against racist beliefs.. then everybody should be racist....

obviously, even when it was profitable to be racist... there was something that caused some people to not fall into it.

The intelligence and objective reasoning argument is based on this thought.

You provide no evidence to go against the idea that intelligence correlates with objective reasoning.

You provide no evidence to go against the idea that intelligence correlates with less racism

You only argue about the mechanism of racism.... as though i didn't already recognize and speak on it.

Stop talking about europe... my christian king analogy was about the mechanism of racism.

and the comparison between slavery also dealt with the mechanism of racism.

You keep running in circles and fail to address ANY of my questions....

I ask of sources that back up your views...and you just ignore me....

it's as though you would rather win the debate than make actual sense and provide a true point.

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2015

GWAP said:
The analogy was about the machanism of racism... you have only agreed with it ever sense it was explained

I was explaining THE MECHANISM OF RACISM.

Belief and practice..... objective understanding vs dogmatic belief.... these were the themes that you fail at addressing....

Then you try to act as though I was agreeing with you....

you were arguing before you even knew what you were arguing against

Science already supports my view on intelligence and racism...

i was just using analogies to help you understand different aspects of the issue...

you spent all your time arguing because you misunderstood the analogies...lol

objectivty is of course relevent. Because if you don't have a societal/cultural/or opportunistic mechanism that goes against racist beliefs.. then everybody should be racist....

obviously, even when it was profitable to be racist... there was something that caused some people to not fall into it.

The intelligence and objective reasoning argument is based on this thought.

You provide no evidence to go against the idea that intelligence correlates with objective reasoning.

You provide no evidence to go against the idea that intelligence correlates with less racism

You only argue about the mechanism of racism.... as though i didn't already recognize and speak on it.

Stop talking about europe... my christian king analogy was about the mechanism of racism.

and the comparison between slavery also dealt with the mechanism of racism.

You keep running in circles and fail to address ANY of my questions....

I ask of sources that back up your views...and you just ignore me....

it's as though you would rather win the debate than make actual sense and provide a true point.

IT WAS A DISTRACTION, you call it an "example" or "analogy"

belief and practice, objective understanding vs dogmatic belief, what you dont understand is THESE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. racist is racist, whether you believe it or practice it, whether you're trying to be objective (subjective) or calling it dogmatic belief (subjective).

there is no difference, and there is no distinction between any of them when we are talking about racism.

what you call different aspects of the issue is just more obfuscation on your part.

what goes against racist doctrines is not objectivity, its morality. objectivity doesnt grant you the ability to choose right from wrong, only to see clearly which is which. morality is what youre looking for here.

the "something" that caused people not to be racist, wasnt their objective thinking, it was their morality. objective thinking would say my beliefs and my actions are in my best "self" interest. morality says let me do what is best for "everyone", the greater good. this is where your confusing objectivity with morality now, versus intelligence before.

intelligence has no correlation with objectivity ON THE SUBJECT OF RACISM, because racism is not FACTUAL. there is no objective position to take in terms of racism, because there it is SUBJECTIVE, to each individual person.

you say intelligence correlates with less racism, but in YOUR analogy THE MOST INTELLIGENT ARE THE MOST RACIST.

what you call "recognizing and speaking on" the "mechanism" of racism, is simply you not even realizing that you were agreeing with me then.

all the rest of this "debate" was extra because you already ceded that

my point, before you interjected with miscellaneous topics, was that A MAJORITY OF WHITE AMERICANS ARE RACIST, although i HOPE theyre not.

you couldnt disagree with that on its face, so it became about how intelligent they are, how objective they are, the history of europe, hate groups and links

durantula · Mar 1, 2015

Based on what I read from the article the guy is a flat out racist. He left all his money to a daughter he hadn't seen in 30 years over a daughter he had a good relationship with until the whole baby with a white guy thing.

“I specifically bequeath nothing to my daughter, Verolin Spence, as she has had no communication with me for several years and has shown no interest in me as her father,” the spiteful 71-year-old Maple widower wrote in his will.

So he left it to the daughter he hadnt seen in 30 years?

With that being said, it was his money and he should be able to cut someone off for accidentally sneezing on him. The judge was completely out of line IMO.

I dont think it will be overturned because I don't think the other daughter cres about what happens to her dead beat dad's money. If she did, I think she wouldve had to say something during this whole process. A simple, he liked me better wouldve shut down her whole case.

gwap · Mar 1, 2015

Hand2HandKing said:
IT WAS A DISTRACTION, you call it an "example" or "analogy"

This is indicative of your lack of comprehension

belief and practice, objective understanding vs dogmatic belief, what you dont understand is THESE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.

racist is racist, whether you believe it or practice it, whether you're trying to be objective (subjective) or calling it dogmatic belief (subjective).

there is no difference, and there is no distinction between any of them when we are talking about racism.

I see now. You can't comprehend the minutae im describing because racism is just racism in your mind and any attempt to dig deeper into its methodology and practice appears to be a "distraction" to you.

what you call different aspects of the issue is just more obfuscation on your part.

You can't comprehend the minutae im describing because racism is just racism in your mind and any attempt to dig deeper into its methodology and practice appears to be a "distraction" to you.

what goes against racist doctrines is not objectivity, its morality. objectivity doesnt grant you the ability to choose right from wrong, only to see clearly which is which. morality is what youre looking for here.

lol...

the "something" that caused people not to be racist, wasnt their objective thinking, it was their morality. objective thinking would say my beliefs and my actions are in my best "self" interest. morality says let me do what is best for "everyone", the greater good. this is where your confusing objectivity with morality now, versus intelligence before.

morality is not objective its subjective.... slave owners would think it's moral to lynch runaway slaves because they disobeyed law. They'd reason that laws are neccesary to maintain the balance between white men and the naturally lesser valuable blacks...... morality won't change that unless objective thinking changes the context of what's moral.

intelligence has no correlation with objectivity ON THE SUBJECT OF RACISM, because racism is not FACTUAL. there is no objective position to take in terms of racism, because there it is SUBJECTIVE, to each individual person.

science disagrees with you.

I already posted evidence that speaks directly to this.

you say intelligence correlates with less racism, but in YOUR analogy THE MOST INTELLIGENT ARE THE MOST RACIST.

1. Science says intelligence correlates with less racism

2. My analogy was about a power structure and racist mechanism...

3. Even in my christian king, and hate group analogy i said that leadership use race as a mechanism of control while the lower intelligent are dogmatic.

4. dogmatic belief is much stronger than engaging in something for gain.

what you call "recognizing and speaking on" the "mechanism" of racism, is simply you not even realizing that you were agreeing with me then.

wow...First my analogies were a distraction...then you argued with me.... then you said my analogy proves your point... then you said they were a distraction again... then you say i agree with you...

this is ridiculous

all the rest of this "debate" was extra because you already ceded that

? what are you talking about.

my point, before you interjected with miscellaneous topics, was that A MAJORITY OF WHITE AMERICANS ARE RACIST, although i HOPE theyre not.

you couldnt disagree with that on its face, so it became about how intelligent they are, how objective they are, the history of europe, hate groups and links

lol.... you don't even remember what you are debating about... here's the original issue before you started becoming incoherent

GWAP said:

can you explain why you think white people of lower socioeconomic status, intelligence and education would be more likely to be racist than those of a higher status, education and intelligence?

Click to expand...

Racism is an illogical ideal that is propagated through:

A > lack of understanding of the actualities of race relations and endorsement of a 'perceived' truth

B > understanding that the ideology is illogical but still purposefully endorsing it for the benefits it provides.

Lack of education/experience is a strong precursur to belief in an illogical ideal.

*Education and Experience has the effect of making some people able to understand and use racism for their benefit...

while also having the side effect of bringing about realization of the actualities of race relations thus making some people less racist

*This situation is evident in most racist groups' heirarchy....

even in prison the aryan nation and other white supremacists work hand in hand with blacks and mexicans at the higher levels and use the racist ideology as a means of using a common enemy to control the lower tiers of their own groups.

Click to expand...

you still ignore when i ask you for sources that support your claims... you give none...

we will continue this debate when you can supply some type of corroboration that supports your view.

Do some research on the issue.

Read through some of the links I provided.

Find contradictory evidence.

Come back and debate on specific points with sources provided.

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2015

GWAP said:
Hand2HandKing said:

morality is not objective its subjective.... slave owners would think it's moral to lynch runaway slaves because they disobeyed law. They'd reason that laws are neccesary to maintain the balance between white men and the naturally lesser valuable blacks...... morality won't change that unless objective thinking changes the context of what's moral.

1. Science says intelligence correlates with less racism

2. My analogy was about a power structure and racist mechanism...

3. Even in my christian king, and hate group analogy i said that leadership use race as a mechanism of control while the lower intelligent are dogmatic.

4. dogmatic belief is much stronger than engaging in something for gain.

wow...First my analogies were a distraction...then you argued with me.... then you said my analogy proves your point... then you said they were a distraction again... then you say i agree with you...

this is ridiculous

lol.... you don't even remember what you are debating about... here's the original issue before you started becoming incoherent

*This situation is evident in most racist groups' heirarchy....

even in prison the aryan nation and other white supremacists work hand in hand with blacks and mexicans at the higher levels and use the racist ideology as a means of using a common enemy to control the lower tiers of their own groups.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ok you did it again, you proved my point. just because slaveowners thought they were being moral in killing slaves DOES NOT MAKE IT MORALITY. that is their subjective thoughts on race. if they thought objectively, then everyone, black and white or otherwise would have been slaves back then as long as they could do the work.

there is no such thing as "changing the context of whats moral". moral is moral. subjectively, you can reason that youre being moral, but thats it.

as far as dogma vs "engaging in something for gain", it is irrelevant which is "stronger" in terms of racism.

and that wasnt the original issue, that was when you started off on your tangent.

this was my original comment that you jumped on:

but when white people are racist, theyre just stupid/ignorant

gwap · Mar 1, 2015

you still ignore when i ask you for sources that support your claims... you give none...

we will continue this debate when you can supply some type of corroboration that supports your view.

Do some research on the issue.

Read through some of the links I provided.

Find contradictory evidence.

Come back and debate on specific points with sources provided.

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2015

i already debated you on every point and proved you wrong

got nothing else left to say? or do you need to go find a link?

fontaine · Mar 1, 2015

All this text

*heads to slim thick angels thread*

gwap · Mar 1, 2015

Hand2HandKing said:
can you explain why you think white people of lower socioeconomic status, intelligence and education would be more likely to be racist than those of a higher status, education and intelligence?

i explained and provided scientific context in regards to this question... you provide no rationale or evidence to counter

and how is it that in your estimation that with higher intelligence and recognition that racism benefits whites, that only some would take advantage?

i broke down with multiple analogies and scientific context in regards to this question.... you provide no rationale or evidence to counter

Hand2HandKing said:
so which is it?

does higher intelligence correlate with a person being more likely to more racist, given their increased ability to take advantage of the benefits of racism?

or lower intelligence correlates with an endorsement/belief in an illogical idea merely because of "perception"?

how is it only some of the people that have the intelligence will use it to their advantage?

Here's you asking the same question again.

IT WAS A DISTRACTION, you call it an "example" or "analogy"

Here's how you respond to the analogy. At this point it is a disctraction and has no relevence.

you say intelligence correlates with less racism, but in YOUR analogy THE MOST INTELLIGENT ARE THE MOST RACIST.

Here's you changing your stance, and now somehow the analogy is proving me wrong instead of just being a distraction

objectivity is not a hallmark of intelligence, you seem to be assuming that higher intelligence=higher objectivity=not racist
everyone's view is subjective, even ppl who pretend to be objective. furthermore, the issue of racism cant be based on objective measures, precisely because it is such a subjective issue.

Here's further ignorance of science and deliberate ignorance of the breakdown of the analogy (reiterated 3 times)

its at this point where i can see how you think this is an argument between us and not an actual debate on a topic....

got nothing else left to say? or do you need to go find a link?

You don't see the value in studies or scientific data by people who have studied this for years, so why would i keep giving you information you don't want to read?

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2015

GWAP said:
Hand2HandKing said:

no because the two are not mutually exclusive.

a majority of white people of lower intelligence can also be racist,

i dont want to believe

that a majority of ALL white people are racist

Click to expand...

julesbeats · Mar 1, 2015

Lorda mercy

suberzat1 · Mar 1, 2015

What's up with all this baby blue and red text in here :nerd:

highrep87 · Mar 1, 2015

Zyzz said:
Load of crap

It's his money he should be able to do whatever he wants

hand2handking · Sep 21, 2015

im still

at this story

Coromanti · Sep 21, 2015

Hand2HandKing said:
im still

at this story

babylon sumting dis..

jchambers · Sep 21, 2015

HighRep87 said:
Zyzz said:

Load of crap

It's his money he should be able to do whatever he wants

Click to expand...

bleach · Dec 6, 2015

bamez said:
Black people can't be racist

meh, du was born in the 40s, i'm sure the things he dealt with in life gave him every reason to hate yt

hand2handking · Mar 1, 2017

[h1]Court of appeal reinstates dad's 'racist' will that shunned daughter[/h1]
Even if his motives were racist and distasteful, the curmudgeon must still have the last word on his own last will and testament.

Ontario’s highest court has reinstated the final wishes of Rector Eric Spence to disinherit a daughter who had an interracial son, reversing a controversial lower court ruling that set aside the Jamaican-born widower’s “racist” will because it offended public policy.

The appeal court said no one has the right to interfere with a person’s distribution of his own estate — even if it’s discriminatory or “repugnant.” Neither the Ontario Human Rights Code nor the Charter can dictate someone’s final, private, legal bequests.

Freedom at last — at least from the grave.

“A testator’s freedom to distribute her property as she chooses is a deeply entrenched common law principle,” wrote Justice Eleanore Cronk on behalf of the three-judge panel. “The common law principle of testamentary freedom thus protects a testator’s right to unconditionally dispose of her property and to choose her beneficiaries as she wishes, even on discriminatory grounds.”

Daughter Verolin Spence, 52, is “disappointed” by the court’s decision, her lawyer Michael Deverett said, and has instructed them to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“You’ve got two very important principles bouncing off each other: One is testamentary freedom and one is racism and the court came down on the side of testamentary freedom,” said Deverett. “We’d like to hear if the Supreme Court has a different opinion.”

Spence left his $400,000 estate to a second daughter he hadn’t seen in 50 years and her two black sons. “I specifically bequeath nothing to my daughter, Verolin Spence, as she has had no communication with me for several years and has shown no interest in me as her father,” the Maple man wrote in his will before he died in 2013 at the age of 71.

Verolin went to court to argue that the real reason she’d been disinherited was due to her father’s shame in her having a child by a white man. A family friend backed up her claim, saying Spence often railed against her and her “white bastard son.”

Last year, a Newmarket judge sided with the man’s daughter and gave her half the estate. “It is clear and uncontradicted, in my view, that the reason for disinheriting Verolin, as articulated by the deceased, was one based on a clearly stated racist principle,” ruled Justice Cory Gilmore. “Does it offend public policy that the deceased’s other daughter, Donna, should receive the entire estate simply because her children were fathered by a black man? That, in my view, offends not only human sensibilities but also public policy.”

BMO Trust, the estate’s executor, asked the appeal court to reinstate the will, arguing the courts have no business interfering with someone’s last wishes or guessing as to the “real” reasons behind them. They also warned that the decision would open the floodgates to other disappointed beneficiaries claiming discrimination.

In rare cases, the judiciary has stepped in to set aside wills whose provisions offend public policy — for example, that of a New Brunswick man who left his estate to an illegal, white supremacist group. But this isn’t one of those cases, the appeal panel ruled.

“The court’s power to interfere with a testator’s testamentary freedom on public policy grounds does not justify intervention simply because the court may regard the testator’s testamentary choices as distasteful, offensive, vengeful or small-minded.”

As for the family friend’s evidence about Spence’s true motivation for disinheriting his daughter, the court of appeal said such “third-party evidence” shouldn’t have been admissible. “In my view, the courts should be loath to sanction such an indirect attack, which the deceased cannot challenge, on a testator’s expressed motive and testamentary choices,” Cronk wrote.

How refreshing. The courts may police our every move while we’re alive, but they’re willing to leave our dying wishes alone.

No matter how ugly or politically incorrect.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/0...states-dads-racist-will-that-shunned-daughter

Search

Jamaican Father Cuts Daughter Out Of His Will For Having A Baby By A White Man But Judge Overrides H

Based Jesus

htg designs

hand2handking

gwap

hand2handking

gwap

hand2handking

gwap

hand2handking

durantula

gwap

hand2handking

gwap

hand2handking

fontaine

gwap

hand2handking

julesbeats

suberzat1

highrep87

hand2handking

Coromanti

jchambers

bleach

hand2handking

Similar threads

Share this page