This is very programmatic thought. I think you might be missing the other concepts that influence the pace at which you reach your conclusion.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Article: Racism still alive: Mujati
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
This is very programmatic thought. I think you might be missing the other concepts that influence the pace at which you reach your conclusion.
Lycanthrope
Honorary Master
Well then I guess that makes you an outstanding individual for never ever thinking/acting out thoughts of a racist nature. You're certainly a better person than I am.
Why thank you, and I'm already quite aware of that too.
What's there to "try" and prove? Racism is nothing more than an irrational belief held by people no different to fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists or any other blind idiocy.
Frankly, if I were you, I'd be far more cautious of those trying to trivialise irrational hatred/supremacism.
Lycanthrope
Honorary Master
You might want to try find another straw-man for your argument.
Their argument is that the bobbejaan is a rugby call and even though I'm the first to lambaste racist on either side of the colour spectrum, this argument does make sense. I played rugby with Matt Stevens and he's far from a racist - I know this to be a fact. He's a very level-headed bloke and resorting to racism is, well, beneath him (if you know his personality).
This really is a storm in a teacup. Even if he was called a bobbejaan it's rugby ffs. I've been called far worse names than that in my sporting years...
This really is a storm in a teacup. Even if he was called a bobbejaan it's rugby ffs. I've been called far worse names than that in my sporting years...
wrathex
Expert Member
From my experience the words 'aap' or ' bobbejaan' are used to describe a person doing something stupid, it can be any person, but is usually directed at a male.
Examples:
Toe ry die aap oor die stop straat. (describing fool who did not stop at stop sign)
Jy gaan soos 'n bobbejaan te kere, ruk jouself reg man ! (addressing a friend or acquaintance who is out of control/drunk)
I don't think racism is just alive and well, I think it is on the increase, and I think ( well, I know, but can't produce the evidence in any tangible form) that crime & governmental corruption & ANCYL anti-white & coloured sentiments are to blame for this increase across the whole spectrum of our society.
All this mud slinging in public is not that bad either, it gives people the opportunity to voice and share their disappointments and delusions
Examples:
Toe ry die aap oor die stop straat. (describing fool who did not stop at stop sign)
Jy gaan soos 'n bobbejaan te kere, ruk jouself reg man ! (addressing a friend or acquaintance who is out of control/drunk)
I don't think racism is just alive and well, I think it is on the increase, and I think ( well, I know, but can't produce the evidence in any tangible form) that crime & governmental corruption & ANCYL anti-white & coloured sentiments are to blame for this increase across the whole spectrum of our society.
All this mud slinging in public is not that bad either, it gives people the opportunity to voice and share their disappointments and delusions
I think more people is just trying to look for racism in any comment that is given between people from different races. It allows them to potentially discredit the person without looking at the issues. It has become the easy way out for a lot of people.
Nonsense. When you decide not to go to the movies, that choice hurts the movie house as it has reduced revenues. When you choose you reduce to the oppertunity set for somebody.
Look its really simple. Do you believe in freedom of association? If so, then pepople are allowed to discriminate in their private capacity. The government should not as it receives tax money from everyone.
Walter E. Williams, (born March 31, 1936) is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.
Reason has called Williams "one of the country’s leading libertarian voices."[3] In 2009, Greg Ransom, a writer for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, ranked Williams as the third most important "Hayekian" Public Intellectual in America, behind only Thomas Sowell and John Stossel.
"In reaction to the racial hyper-sensitivity he saw in higher education, in the 1970's Williams started offering white colleagues a gag certificate of amnesty and pardon to all white people for Western Civilization's sins against blacks - and "thus obliged them not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry." He now offers it to anyone through his website. [14]"
From an essay of Williams entitled "The Right To Discriminate".
"Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let’s look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.
You say, Williams, that’s different. It’s not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment." While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn’t change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.
Moreover, the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association doesn’t come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive."
PS: Its the same principle as freedom of speech. This concepts allows people to say things others deem offensive.
Last edited:
+1000
Never heard something more true being said on this forum. Lycanthrope, my man you have nailed it in the head right there.
Freedom of speech does not condone hate speech.
No, the constitution does. There is a different between a principle and a piece of paper.
The principle behind freedom of speech is not so that everyone can talk about the weather and praise each other. It is so we can say things other people deem offensive and not go to jail.
The fact that the constitution has a few "exceptions" to this principle, doesn't mean the principle has legitimate exceptions. The constitution is just a bunch of words on a piece of paper and is quite contradictory in a number of places.
You cannot advocate a principle an arbitrarily add whatever exceptions you want.
Then why are you using the points made in the constitution to defend your argument?
Show me where it says that in the constitution.
Last edited:
The fact that freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution is purely coincidental. I advocate freedom of speech for different reasons.
You are pulling at straws.
English please. I have no idea what you want me to do. "that in the constitution using a legitimate source.."
You should really keep track of the discussion.
No, your sentence makes so little sense I cannot fathom what sort of reply you want from me.
"...that in the constitution using a legitimate source..." is terrible sentence structure/grammer.
Last edited:
Without going into your stupid logic for not understanding my question because you quote it out of context, I would like to say when you use the term Freedom of Speech, you are referring to the "legal right" in the constitution to do so. If you want to make up your own bs and label it freedom of speech then also try to be genuine and come up with your own phrase.
Nonsense. I don't think something is a right or not because some peace of paper or institution arbitrarily declares I have such a right, until it arbitrarily declares I don't.
I'm not a legal positivist and you can't misrepresent my argument and then attack the misrepresentation and claim victory in a debate.
Also, I still genuinely have no idea what you meant with that sentence, I cannot even guess. So if you want a response, simply explain what you meant. It is quite simple, for some reason you seem to want to debate judging by your continual responses yet you can't be bothered to explain what you mean?
Confusing to say the least.
Nuff said, peace out!