Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

White Lives Matter

HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 3:22:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Do they?

Or do they not?

How have white people contributed to our earth?

Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?

Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?

Do white lives matter?
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
KendoRe2
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 3:30:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Nope just faces in the crowd. Whites have no feelings and if a white gets a good job and has a good life, doesn't matter that what they're supposed to do. Only minorities and special groups matter.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 5:09:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:22:27 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Do they?
yes

Or do they not?
not more so than any other races lives

How have white people contributed to our earth?
Organizational skills in Government and good classification systems, have caused European dominated societies to economically prosper.

Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?
There is no weight to balance. The continued resistance to "hearing" the perspectives of non-assimilated groups and individuals makes them appear to have a superiority complex. Any good that they have done collectively won't be recognized by other groups, until they are open to integration of ideas, not just expecting assimilation.

Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?
no, they don't deserve the pressure of having to compete for everything, at the expense of expanding on creative energy that could be used to collaborate with other groups. They treat each other like shit, in many cases and are accepted by being able to put up with it.

Do white lives matter?
yes, they should stop resisting the ideas that intergration and collaboration with other races and cultures could be beneficial to everyone.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 7:35:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Everyone lives on the fruits of previous generations. The good life a white person in the US enjoys today isn't really because of his or her own personal efforts but because they were born into country that was already wealthy and prosperous. Maybe somebody did work hard at school - they get credit for that, but the fact there was a fine, well equipped school for them to work hard in they cannot claim any personal credit for.

Suppose 90% of the public wealth of America (ie schools, road, hospitals, housng, well paid jobs) had been built up by white entrepreneurs in the 19th century. How would that translate into justfying whites enjoying the lion's share of that carried over public wealth in the 21st Century?
Otto_Hasenkamp
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 1:41:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
How have white people contributed to our earth?
Oh, not much, just about 95% of the useful inventions in the world.
Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?
You're talking like white people are the only race that has ever done anything wrong. How about jews for usury? And muslims and blacks for slave trade?
Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?
What do you mean by "like they do"? If you're implying I live in a mansion with a butler serving me sandwiches made out of pure gold, that's incorrect. The only reason why some people live like that is because of capitalism.
Do white lives matter?
Most of them do.
"Vor uns liegt Deutschland, in uns marschiert Deutschland, und hinter uns, kommt Deutschland!"
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:11:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 2:34:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
All lives are equally important.

Why do you think so?

Couldn't the loss of a certain life have a much greater societal repercussion than the loss of another?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:27:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:11:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 2:34:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
All lives are equally important.

Why do you think so?

Couldn't the loss of a certain life have a much greater societal repercussion than the loss of another?

I guess, but government or policy wise we ought to. But obviously within common sense, like the president ought to be valued more
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:27:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:27:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
I guess, but government or policy wise we ought to. But obviously within common sense, like the president ought to be valued more

That's what I meant.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:36:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:27:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
I guess, but government or policy wise we ought to. But obviously within common sense, like the president ought to be valued more

That's what I meant.

But the main point, and the point relevent to the OP is that it is morally wrong to weigh lives unequally on the basis of sex, race, creed, orientation, etc. I don't know if you can make the moral case that every life matters equally every time, but everyone can accept that those are at least true. But even morally speaking, I don't find that someone can justly value a life as more important than others. Regardless, of social reprecussions. Could you give an example of one?

Regardless, government policy definately should operate based on equality (plus common sense)
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:37:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:36:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
But the main point, and the point relevent to the OP is that it is morally wrong to weigh lives unequally on the basis of sex, race, creed, orientation, etc. I don't know if you can make the moral case that every life matters equally every time, but everyone can accept that those are at least true. But even morally speaking, I don't find that someone can justly value a life as more important than others. Regardless, of social reprecussions. Could you give an example of one?

You're a rule utilitarian, right?

Morally speaking wouldn't the death of an important person have a greater negative impact than the death of a common person, then?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:39:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 2:34:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
All lives are equally important.

Most lives are equally useless regardless of race.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:40:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:36:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
I guess, but government or policy wise we ought to. But obviously within common sense, like the president ought to be valued more

That's what I meant.

But the main point, and the point relevent to the OP is that it is morally wrong to weigh lives unequally on the basis of sex, race, creed, orientation, etc. I don't know if you can make the moral case that every life matters equally every time, but everyone can accept that those are at least true. But even morally speaking, I don't find that someone can justly value a life as more important than others. Regardless, of social reprecussions. Could you give an example of one?

Regardless, government policy definately should operate based on equality (plus common sense)

Government should operate based on a Constitution which declares all individuals under it to be equal under the law. With an addition of some monetary equilibrium if it happens to operate under a central bank and a military, court system, police force, etc. is all that a government should have/operate under.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:44:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:22:27 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Do they?

Yeah, but on an individual basis, rather than a collective.

Or do they not?

How have white people contributed to our earth?

Mechanical ingenuity, or what today is called technological know-how, contrary to common belief is by no means a late development. From the mid-eighteenth century on, the people, confronted with a chronic shortage of labor and the problems arising from formidable distances and poor communications, devised means to overcome these handicaps as well as to ameliorate other conditions of life. The record is truly remarkable. Before the end of the nineteenth century Benjamin Franklin, Eli Whitney, and their successors produced such epochal inventions as the lightning rod, the cotton gin, the steamboat, the metal plow, the harvester, vulcanized rubber, the sewing machine, the telegraph, the telephone, and the electric light, among others. In still other instances they greatly improved on what had come to them from abroad.

The upshot was not only to transform American life but that of peoples everywhere. President Truman therefore was not occupying wholly new ground when in 1949 he proposed his Point Four Program to make "the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas" and thus "help them realize their aspirations for a better life." Under this program the United States has sent experts in industry, engineering, and agriculture to many lands; built roads and bridges in Iran, irrigation works in India, and fertilizer plants in Korea; and endeavored in countless other ways to remove the obstacles that have barred less enterprising countries from the advantages of modern civilization. Just as the government has made our philanthropic impulse a vital instrument of foreign policy, so also it has done with our technological skill.


Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?

Whites collectively haven't done anything bad.


Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?

Whites do not all live relegated to a certain type of living. There's white that are treated poorly in South Africa and whites that live like kings in various other nations.


Do white lives matter?

On an individual basis, yes, but on a collective, I wouldn't say that ALL white lives matter.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Irascible_Me
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:48:09 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:30:46 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
Nope just faces in the crowd. Whites have no feelings and if a white gets a good job and has a good life, doesn't matter that what they're supposed to do. Only minorities and special groups matter.

You are freaking hilarious. Hats off to you!!!
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 4:49:33 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:37:51 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:36:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
But the main point, and the point relevent to the OP is that it is morally wrong to weigh lives unequally on the basis of sex, race, creed, orientation, etc. I don't know if you can make the moral case that every life matters equally every time, but everyone can accept that those are at least true. But even morally speaking, I don't find that someone can justly value a life as more important than others. Regardless, of social reprecussions. Could you give an example of one?

You're a rule utilitarian, right?

Morally speaking wouldn't the death of an important person have a greater negative impact than the death of a common person, then?

idk what I am. I probably am what you are though. I know I'm not complete utilitarian though, there are rules. Thus a rule utilitarian seems right I guess

The government favoring people that are famous over other citizens is just wrong. It shows that the government values that individual above the others, which is never something a government ought to do, especially on the grounds of popularity. The government using large amounts of resources to save one person (the famous) could be used to save larger amounts of people too
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 4:50:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:39:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/29/2016 2:34:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
All lives are equally important.

Most lives are equally useless regardless of race.

Well, all lives have value. There are some people that don't have a reasonable use in their lives, but that doesn't mean they don't hold value or importance.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 4:50:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:40:43 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:36:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
I guess, but government or policy wise we ought to. But obviously within common sense, like the president ought to be valued more

That's what I meant.

But the main point, and the point relevent to the OP is that it is morally wrong to weigh lives unequally on the basis of sex, race, creed, orientation, etc. I don't know if you can make the moral case that every life matters equally every time, but everyone can accept that those are at least true. But even morally speaking, I don't find that someone can justly value a life as more important than others. Regardless, of social reprecussions. Could you give an example of one?

Regardless, government policy definately should operate based on equality (plus common sense)

Government should operate based on a Constitution which declares all individuals under it to be equal under the law. With an addition of some monetary equilibrium if it happens to operate under a central bank and a military, court system, police force, etc. is all that a government should have/operate under.

Not a good idea...
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 4:57:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 4:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
The government favoring people that are famous over other citizens is just wrong. It shows that the government values that individual above the others, which is never something a government ought to do, especially on the grounds of popularity. The government using large amounts of resources to save one person (the famous) could be used to save larger amounts of people too

Not "people who are famous."

The reality is that there should be more severe punishments for assassination attempts on major government officials than any normal individual, because of the sheer social instability that it would bring. The net harm generated by that is *much* more, so that's how it should work, whether we like it or not.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:08:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 4:57:11 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 4:49:33 AM, Hayd wrote:
The government favoring people that are famous over other citizens is just wrong. It shows that the government values that individual above the others, which is never something a government ought to do, especially on the grounds of popularity. The government using large amounts of resources to save one person (the famous) could be used to save larger amounts of people too

Not "people who are famous."

The reality is that there should be more severe punishments for assassination attempts on major government officials than any normal individual, because of the sheer social instability that it would bring. The net harm generated by that is *much* more, so that's how it should work, whether we like it or not.

For government officials yes, but for just citizens no
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 4:50:56 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:40:43 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:36:16 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/29/2016 3:27:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
I guess, but government or policy wise we ought to. But obviously within common sense, like the president ought to be valued more

That's what I meant.

But the main point, and the point relevent to the OP is that it is morally wrong to weigh lives unequally on the basis of sex, race, creed, orientation, etc. I don't know if you can make the moral case that every life matters equally every time, but everyone can accept that those are at least true. But even morally speaking, I don't find that someone can justly value a life as more important than others. Regardless, of social reprecussions. Could you give an example of one?

Regardless, government policy definately should operate based on equality (plus common sense)

Government should operate based on a Constitution which declares all individuals under it to be equal under the law. With an addition of some monetary equilibrium if it happens to operate under a central bank and a military, court system, police force, etc. is all that a government should have/operate under.

Not a good idea...

Well, that's the structure of the United States when it first came about...
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 6:38:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:22:27 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Do they?
Depends

Or do they not?
Depends

How have white people contributed to our earth?
they've collaborated and contributed greatly to civilization throughout history

Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?
Depends

Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?
Depends

Do white lives matter?
Depends
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 3:17:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Some of my thoughts on this:

1. To put all people who have white skin in a group and judge them all collectively regardless of individual merit is a bit unfair.
2. To say that a group's right to live depends on their contributions to the world is a bit ridiculous. We don't go around exterminating disabled people, do we?
3. Oh I don't know. Does the industrial revolution (which allowed for mass production), the internet, the moon landing, mapping the entire world, mapping much of outer space, the air conditioning unit, the automobile, the refrigerator, the vaccine, capitalism, communism, democracy, human rights, water purification, modern agriculture techniques (which has vastly increased crop yields), globalisation (which shared modern technology with the non-Western world), the global abolition of slavery, photography, the telephone, jet transportation (which would allow a man to get from Japan to Paris in less than 24 hours), gender equality, Coca-Cola, modern medical techniques, genetic engineering, modern architecture techniques, television, movies, and modern music count?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 7:33:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:22:27 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Do they?

Or do they not?

How have white people contributed to our earth?

Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?

Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?

Do white lives matter?

White lives have mattered for centuries....

Ask the Polynesians....

New Zealanders

The Aboriginals

Mexicans

Central and South Americans

Africans

Arabs

Asians

etc....

SMH whites are so fascinated with race I swear you all play this card so much
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 7:36:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 3:44:34 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/28/2016 3:22:27 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Do they?

Yeah, but on an individual basis, rather than a collective.

Or do they not?

How have white people contributed to our earth?

Mechanical ingenuity, or what today is called technological know-how, contrary to common belief is by no means a late development. From the mid-eighteenth century on, the people, confronted with a chronic shortage of labor and the problems arising from formidable distances and poor communications, devised means to overcome these handicaps as well as to ameliorate other conditions of life. The record is truly remarkable. Before the end of the nineteenth century Benjamin Franklin, Eli Whitney, and their successors produced such epochal inventions as the lightning rod, the cotton gin, the steamboat, the metal plow, the harvester, vulcanized rubber, the sewing machine, the telegraph, the telephone, and the electric light, among others. In still other instances they greatly improved on what had come to them from abroad.

The upshot was not only to transform American life but that of peoples everywhere. President Truman therefore was not occupying wholly new ground when in 1949 he proposed his Point Four Program to make "the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas" and thus "help them realize their aspirations for a better life." Under this program the United States has sent experts in industry, engineering, and agriculture to many lands; built roads and bridges in Iran, irrigation works in India, and fertilizer plants in Korea; and endeavored in countless other ways to remove the obstacles that have barred less enterprising countries from the advantages of modern civilization. Just as the government has made our philanthropic impulse a vital instrument of foreign policy, so also it has done with our technological skill.


Have they outweighed the all the bad things they've done with good?

Whites collectively haven't done anything bad.


Do white people actually deserve to live like they do?

Whites do not all live relegated to a certain type of living. There's white that are treated poorly in South Africa and whites that live like kings in various other nations.


Do white lives matter?

On an individual basis, yes, but on a collective, I wouldn't say that ALL white lives matter.

On the flipside whites in history have stolen ideas from others as if it is their own ideas and have re-written history to masquerade the idea that people of non-Caucasian origin could not have designed things that have benefited humanity.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 2:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/30/2016 3:17:59 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Some of my thoughts on this:

1. To put all people who have white skin in a group and judge them all collectively regardless of individual merit is a bit unfair.
So is doing the same to Muslims.
2. To say that a group's right to live depends on their contributions to the world is a bit ridiculous. We don't go around exterminating disabled people, do we?
To say an ethnicity is superior because of inventions is ok?
3. Oh I don't know. Does the industrial revolution (which allowed for mass production), the internet, the moon landing, mapping the entire world, mapping much of outer space, the air conditioning unit, the automobile, the refrigerator, the vaccine, capitalism, communism, democracy, human rights, water purification, modern agriculture techniques (which has vastly increased crop yields), globalisation (which shared modern technology with the non-Western world), the global abolition of slavery, photography, the telephone, jet transportation (which would allow a man to get from Japan to Paris in less than 24 hours), gender equality, Coca-Cola, modern medical techniques, genetic engineering, modern architecture techniques, television, movies, and modern music count?
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 10:18:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 1:41:06 AM, Otto_Hasenkamp wrote:
How have white people contributed to our earth?
Oh, not much, just about 95% of the useful inventions in the world.
Many times, you were reinventing what other peoples have used for centuries (e.g. the movable-type printing press, Gaussian elimination).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
DiogenestheDog
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 9:29:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 7:35:18 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Everyone lives on the fruits of previous generations. The good life a white person in the US enjoys today isn't really because of his or her own personal efforts but because they were born into country that was already wealthy and prosperous. Maybe somebody did work hard at school - they get credit for that, but the fact there was a fine, well equipped school for them to work hard in they cannot claim any personal credit for.

Suppose 90% of the public wealth of America (ie schools, road, hospitals, housng, well paid jobs) had been built up by white entrepreneurs in the 19th century. How would that translate into justfying whites enjoying the lion's share of that carried over public wealth in the 21st Century

Either whites should proposer by right of inheritance or whites were not wrong to colonize and mistreat other people. It is one or the other.

If past whites generated the prosperity then it is current whites who should profit by right of inheritance. Of course everyone wants to prosper but what people want has never set what is morally correct. Inheritance is so socially accepted justice with what to do with the wealth, or props specify, to be passed on after the holders death.

The only way whites would not be the primary beneficiaries of their previous generations accomplishment is if the parents decided to do the opposite of what everyone does which is give their belongings to their surviving relatives.

If you say this is wrong then it is also wrong for anyone to claim land or country based on inheritance and in that case there was nothing wrong about colonial whites taking land other people's inherited from Their ancestors. If that is true then it also would not be wrong to mistreat non-whites now.

Either is is our by inheritance or all that matters is what you take and not what you build becuaee you don't get to decide what happens with your life accomplishment.

It is a fact practically all Technology we use today was invented by whites .no matter what this technology is western and it can never be anything else. Other people have rights to use, or rent but can never own ideas that are not their own. Not only do whites have a right to their prosperity but the world owes them a debt they cannot repay until they match the technological fears of the west.
DiogenestheDog
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 9:34:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:30:46 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
Nope just faces in the crowd. Whites have no feelings and if a white gets a good job and has a good life, doesn't matter that what they're supposed to do. Only minorities and special groups matter.

I totally applaud comments lie this from idiots because it helps to racialize white parole the way everyone else is racial laws and then PC culture can die and the deportations can begin. Or civil war. Either is better than the current path. The US ARMY is disproportionately white thank god as are all the militia groups.

It's time to kick out the invaders and genocidede and take back our countries from the filth washing up looking for hand outs.