Forgive me, I can’t find the thread where we talked about forced interbreeding, but one point I’d like to make.
The anti-Whites will say: No one is forcing blacks and whites to have sex, therefore there is no genocide.
Shouldn’t we point out that it is not a requirement under international law that someone stand over a couple with a gun and force them to breed, in order for it to be genocide? Because that is the premise of their statement. They are saying that since they don’t see rape rooms with white women shackled to a wall, it’s not genocide.
But the UN Treaty doesn’t require any such thing for it to be called genocide. Finding a way to point this out would make clear how ridiculous their point is.
19 comments
Article 2 of the Convention on Genocide defines the word as:
any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intent to prevent birth within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Jason is wrong in that this has to be carried out as a matter of policy and must be said to affect the group as a group rather than individuals. If white person A decides to have a relationship and children, of his or her own free will, with non-white person B, this is not an act of genocide unless a) it was the intention of B to destroy, in whole or in part, A's people, and b) B was doing this as part of a wider program of genocide. As there is no such program and as there is no evidence that such relationships are intended to destroy the white people, it's not genocide.
It's curious that white racists often find very little problem in denying genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo where (a), (b), (c) and (d) all happened, even though people have been convicted of genocide at The Hague.
Jason, you and your ilk need a dictionary!
And, "Anti-Racist means ANTI-RACIST!"
I think annold Dillahunty line might apply to the spirit of this statement. Paraphrased slightly due to bad memory, "If I see you beating someone over the head with a stick and I take it away that's not infringing on your rights." this guy seems to feel overly entitled not just to avoid interracial sex but to deny others the freedom to engage in that. Typical racialist authoritarian.
Why does these fucks always claim genocide whenever a person of different skin color breed with white people?
"They are saying that since they don’t see rape rooms with white women shackled to a wall, it’s not genocide.
"
Because that's not genocide. That's woman is a sex slave, totally different than "white genocide".
"They are saying that since they don’t see rape rooms with white women shackled to a wall, it’s not genocide."
Shut. Up. Shut the fuck up about the white women already. They are not helpless damsels in distress; they are PEOPLE who can make their OWN goddamn decisions.
And by focusing only on the white women, you conveniently ignore all the white men who choose interracial relationships. Why is that, I wonder? Is it because men should be "strong" enough not to be "victimized" as such? Or is it that they should be capable of making autonomous decisions for themselves?
How utterly misogynistic.
If people want to vanish a race, procreating with a person of other race is not the solution because, in one way or another, they're passing their genes. Think about it, how is it that at least 25% of the white people in Virginia have at least a black ancestor?
J. James: A livestock breeder could explain. The idea is that if you use a "superior" sire on an "inferior"female herd, you are "grading up" your stock, while if you permit an "inferior" sire to impregnate your purebred brood animals, you have destroyed the pedigree of your herd. Applying this model to a human community assumes all women are supposed to be brood animals and the sole purpose of a man is to indiscriminately serve every female he can get, and that white people are pedigreed and nonwhites are scrub stock, so that white men recklessly impregnating all the inferior women they can find are doing an immeasurable service to the gene pool, while a nonwhite male who fathers even one child on even his lawfully wedded white spouse is polluting it.
There's nobody being systematically slaughtered, in fact both applicable opposites: babies being born and a lack of murder is what you're complaining about.
Therefore, no genocide and you are a horrible excuse for a man.
The argument is actually that there is no coercion in any way to have sex with a person of another race.
Your argument, without context, is that by default, governments commit genocide.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.