• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Shooting at Sikh Temple Outside Milwaukee [W:211]

99percenter said:
But they fill out Asian in the US census and not white/caucasian.
Click to expand...

If you notice, there is no category in the census for "White/Caucasian" or even "Caucasian."

Punjabis would not usually consider themselves white. "White" typically refers to the fairer skinned peoples of Europe and their descendants. However, "white" does not necessarily equate with "Caucasian," and this is the point!

Hence, Punjabis may not be "white" in the familiar sense of the term, but they are certainly Caucasian, or more specifically: caucasoid. They are certainly not mongoloid.

Get it now?
 
Sig said:
If you notice, there is no category in the census for "White/Caucasian" or even "Caucasian."

Punjabis would not usually consider themselves white. "White" typically refers to the fairer skinned peoples of Europe and their descendants. However, "white" does not necessarily equate with "Caucasian," and this is the point!

Hence, Punjabis may not be "white" in the familiar sense of the term, but they are certainly Caucasian, or more specifically: caucasoid. They are certainly not mongoloid.

Get it now?
Click to expand...


White and Caucasian are used interchangeably in the US. Don't pretend it isn't
 
99percenter said:
White and Caucasian are used interchangeably in the US. Don't pretend it isn't
Click to expand...

Just because they are used interchangeably does not mean it is the correct usage, or that it precludes a different usage of the term
 
99percenter said:
White and Caucasian are used interchangeably in the US. Don't pretend it isn't
Click to expand...

True. There are quite a few ignoramuses in the U.S. when it comes to the subject; and, yes, you are one of them.
 
I wonder if this guy actually picked this place assuming he might be able to shoot the place up and escape police. From the videos I've seen of it, it kinda looks like it's out in the middle of nowhere. I also don't buy the "too dumb to know they aren't Muslims" theory.
 
TurtleDude said:
the current thinking is that the asshole who shot these people was too stupid to understand that Sikhs are not Muslims and it appears that this mope-who had 9-11 tattooed on him was a muslim hater.

I recall a Sikh cab driver was murdered by some racist turd after 9-11 not knowing the difference
Click to expand...

That's my thinking, another scum sucker with little understanding of the world around him. I think we will soon discover the shoot in Wisconsin was a loner and an idiot.

Just after 9/11? You are correct. It was in Phoenix, where else? Right after the 9/11, the ****-for-brains gunned down a Sikh who was pumping gas at his own gas station. Next, the same idiot shot a Sikh cab driver and after that he pumped bullets into the house of a family who was originally from Afghanistan. Brilliant, wasn't he?
 
TurtleDude said:
the current thinking is that the asshole who shot these people was too stupid to understand that Sikhs are not Muslims and it appears that this mope-who had 9-11 tattooed on him was a muslim hater.

I recall a Sikh cab driver was murdered by some racist turd after 9-11 not knowing the difference
Click to expand...

Well, for once we agree on something TD.
 
Risky Thicket said:
That's my thinking, another scum sucker with little understanding of the world around him. I think we will soon discover the shoot in Wisconsin was a loner and an idiot.

Just after 9/11? You are correct. It was in Phoenix, where else? Right after the 9/11, the ****-for-brains gunned down a Sikh who was pumping gas at his own gas station. Next, the same idiot shot a Sikh cab driver and after that he pumped bullets into the house of a family who was originally from Afghanistan. Brilliant, wasn't he?
Click to expand...

The sad thing is, it doesn't shock me some people are ignorant of it. Or more...that those who are so ignorant as to want to attack people based on their religion are too ignorant to notice, upon closer look, that there's something different between the two.

Honestly, I knew OF sikhs since college religion courses, but it wasn't until actually taking a mandatory training course while with TSA that outlines many of the basic facts about Sikh's and relates that to screening that I had a better and more full understanding of them as their own religious entity.

Ignorance, intolerance, and hate like this is disgusting however, wherever, and with whoever it manifests.
 
Sig said:
If you notice, there is no category in the census for "White/Caucasian" or even "Caucasian."

Punjabis would not usually consider themselves white. "White" typically refers to the fairer skinned peoples of Europe and their descendants. However, "white" does not necessarily equate with "Caucasian," and this is the point!

Hence, Punjabis may not be "white" in the familiar sense of the term, but they are certainly Caucasian, or more specifically: caucasoid. They are certainly not mongoloid.

Get it now?
Click to expand...

The above... makes no sense even if one were to go the outdated models of racial theory you're using. Indo-Aryans (which Sikhs would most definitely fall into) are squarely within the Mongoloid charts.
 
Hatuey said:
The above... makes no sense even if one were to go the outdated models of racial theory you're using. Indo-Aryans (which Sikhs would most definitely fall into) are squarely within the Mongoloid charts.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.

No they do not.

The majority of indians are caucasian in physical and genetic grouping systems.
 
vendur said:
ROFLMAO.

No they do not.

The majority of indians are caucasian in physical and genetic grouping systems.
Click to expand...

He's using the outdated Meyers Lexicon. Do you see why my reference to Indo-Aryans is there yet? Or is this going to be another one of those threads where I have to explain to you basic reading comprehension techniques?

And if you want to go into "genetic groupings"

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005),[37] the population of the subcontinent can be divided into four morphological types:Caucasoids in the north, Mongoloids in the northeast, Australoids in the western, central and southern regions of the country and Negritos largely restricted to the Andaman Islands; however, these groups tend to overlap because of admixture. The majority of genetic differences among Indians appears to be distributed along caste lines, rather than along ethnic lines, although genetic differences do exist between predominantly Indo-European-speaking northern and predominantly Dravidian-speaking southern Indian populations, as was also observed by Reich in a recent 2009 study.[38]
Click to expand...

What were you saying again?
 
Hatuey said:
He's using the outdated Meyers Lexicon. Do you see why my reference to Indo-Aryans is there yet? Or is this going to be another one of those threads where I have to explain to you basic reading comprehension techniques?
Click to expand...

You said : "Indo-Aryans (which Sikhs would most definitely fall into) are squarely within the Mongoloid charts."

It's entirely absurd and ignorant of any relevant knowledge whatsoever,

Hatuey said:
And if you want to go into "genetic groupings"

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What were you saying again?
Click to expand...


the question is what were you referring to mister "squarely within the Mongoloid charts"?
 
vendur said:
You said : "Indo-Aryans (which Sikhs would most definitely fall into) are squarely within the Mongoloid charts."
Click to expand...

Yes, and if you had read his post, which is based on the outdated Meyers Lexicon, you would know why it is I said that. Maybe you should try reading logical progression of posts? It would help you a ton. I'm charging you for the next lesson.

vendur said:
It's entirely absurd and ignorant of any relevant knowledge whatsoever,
Click to expand...

I would guess a study showing that the Indian subcontinent is actually divided into 4 distinct morphological groupings which are mixed depending on geography would be "irrelevant" to somebody trying to claim that Indians are Caucasoids.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Yes, and if you had read his post, which is based on the outdated Meyers Lexicon, you would know why it is I said that. Maybe you should try reading logical progression of posts? It would help you a ton. I'm charging you for the next lesson.



I would guess a study showing that the Indian subcontinent is actually divided into 4 distinct morphological groupings which are mixed depending on geography would be "irrelevant" to somebody trying to claim that Indians are Caucasoids.
Click to expand...

These god damn "who's on first" posts of yours are quite annoying. It seems all you do here is talk about a bunch of **** you have no idea about, get destroyed in debate, then play this stupid who's on first game.


I'm not aware of a racial geneitc or physical classification scheme called "meyers lexicon".

You specifically defined the group in question and then claimed they fit into the "mongoloid charts". <-- what EXACTLY do you mean by this, be specific.
 
vendur said:
These god damn "who's on first" posts of yours are quite annoying. It seems all you do here is talk about a bunch of **** you have no idea about, get destroyed in debate, then play this stupid who's on first game.
Click to expand...

Lol, awww, I promise I won't bring up those darn facts again.

I'm not aware of a racial geneitc or physical classification scheme called "meyers lexicon".
Click to expand...

Now you are:

Meyers Konversations-Lexikon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Meyers b11 s0476a.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and I noticed a mistake on my part. According to the outdated models he's using they'd fall into the "Negroid" morphology.

You specifically defined the group in question and then claimed they fit into the "mongoloid charts". <-- what EXACTLY do you mean by this, be specific.
Click to expand...

You seem to have trouble reading full statements or even half a statement and drawing logical conclusions out of them. Here is what I stated in full:

Hatuey said:
The above... makes no sense even if one were to go the outdated models of racial theory you're using. Indo-Aryans (which Sikhs would most definitely fall into) are squarely within the Mongoloid charts.
Click to expand...

Now do you notice me suggesting he was using outdated racial theories models? Not only that but I pointed out that Indo-Aryans according to those models fall within the Mongoloid charts? What do you think I meant by that?
 
Last edited:
Let's see so far:

1. A poster tries to dispel a tiny portion of Hatuey's copious ignorance by accurately describing modern nuances between "white" and "Caucasian".
2. Hatuey claims that the completely accurate description "makes no sense" ....
3. ...that "even if " you use old out dated models that "indo-aryans of india would fit into the "mongoloid charts". --> he provides no evidence or proof of this and is completely ignorant of pretty much every racial classification scheme ever created.
4. He claims it's "meyers lexicon" classification system, which there is no such thing.
5. He trips over hsi own bull**** and now calls them negroid instead of mongoloids after I hold his feet to the fire about his mongoloid bull****.
6. He's grossly and laughably unaware of the irony he is searching for an archaic classification scheme to try to find "indo-aryans" as being mongoloid/negroid, all the while criticizing for something he ignorant believed they were supposedly doing, when he was the only one doing that very thing.
 
Last edited:
vendur said:
Let's see so far:

1. A poster tries to dispel a tiny portion of Hatuey's copious ignorance by accurately describing modern nuances between "white" and "Caucasian".
Click to expand...

By using outdated models.

2. Hatuey claims that the completely accurate description "makes no sense" ....
Click to expand...

By showing what those outdated models themselves state.

3. ...that "even if " you use old out dated models that "indo-aryans of india would fit into the "mongoloid charts". --> he provides no evidence or proof of this and is completely ignorant of pretty much every racial classification scheme ever created.
Click to expand...

Except by posting the link to the charts themselves.

4. He claims it's "meyers lexicon" classification system, which there is no such thing.
Click to expand...

.... Lol. Do you know how links work? Click on them.

5. He trips over hsi own bull**** and now calls them negroid instead of mongoloids after I hold his feet to the fire about his mongoloid bull****.
6. He's grossly and laughably unaware of the irony he is searching for a ancient classification schemes to try to find "indo-aryans" as being mongoloid/negroid, all the while criticizing for something he ignorant believed they were supposedly doing, when he was the only one doing that very thing.
Click to expand...

You're boring me with your inability to create a concise argument and ad nauseum repeating of the word "ignorant". In either case the point that you failed so horribly to grasp is that he's wrong in using three part models because they've been discredited by the very "genetic groupings" which you think "caucasoids" are part of.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
The New Black Pather Party is pretty nasty.
Click to expand...
True, but what makes them left-wing?


I greatly dislike the American left/right spectrum.
They cross over each other all the time, so to characterize them as right or left is inaccurate to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed.


That would make American liberals right wing, in many instances.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. Calling mainstream Dems left-wing, socialist or commie has always struck me as pretty stupid and demonstrates a high degree of ignorance about what these terms actually mean.
 
99percenter said:
I doubt it was random. Not hard to connect dots. A couple of white guys shoot a bunch of indian people praying. Do you really think these people were random or do you think there is a reason?
Click to expand...

Of course it wasn't random. They probably picked their target based on the fact that they were defenseless. That's the one constant that these shootings have in common, 100% of the time.
 
Andalublue said:
True, but what makes them left-wing?


Agreed.


Yes, it would. Calling mainstream Dems left-wing, socialist or commie has always struck me as pretty stupid and demonstrates a high degree of ignorance about what these terms actually mean.
Click to expand...

They're socialists. That's what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom