Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "A "Racial Realist" Joins TYT For An Interesting Interview" video.

  1. very well put & i'll make sure to remember yours & my conversation the next time i find myself faced with a person who's less than a novice. in truth though, "fact" is a fluid concept if you're debating the right person (y'know?). when some people get mired down with facts or find themselves knee deep in #@$%, they'll try a lame, existential tactic. i'd never discount god because there's more than just the bible that tries to address "him".
    2
  2. but i understand exactly what you mean. ultimately, i just need to stay away from those discussions with fools because my understanding of the facts is going to be much more informed. i suppose that sounds elitist. but in truth, it might be a necessity just for basic sanity
    1
  3. this is a pretty old thread so i honestly don't know what you're talking about. all i can say with regard to your comment is that the premise depends on the authority to which that debater referred. it's not my style to make an argument based on a bad premise but i'm still human. so be specific (please). what do you mean?
    1
  4. that's a misnomer. while the first egyptians were black or berber, there was so much intermingling among those people it's hard to say that they were just black. you have to take into account that the straits of gibraltar are very narrow so it's easy for the spanish to come & trade (often trade in flesh), it's easy for true caucasians (iranians), arabs & hebrews (often called semites which is also a misnomer but i use it for lack of a better term here) to come mix with black people as well
    1
  5. don't forget that the 1st people to inhabit japan were ainu. ainu people are proposed to be caucasian
    1
  6. why because he has a broader scope than some separatist moron?
    1
  7. what a moron. you dug through months of comments to say snarky shit to me? that was lame even for youtube standards. what's more, i'm CORRECT
    1
  8. true. about that you're extremely correct. but if you're talking nuances football to some that doesn't understand the rudiments of the game, don't you think it's valid to say that the person with whom you're discussing isn't in much of a position to challenge your knowledge? in fairness, you shouldn't be arguing nuance with a novice but i think you understand the systemic problem. if not, i'll make another analogy. how can you argue calculus with someone that can't perform arithmetic?
    1
  9. it doesn't improve but it definitely serves them in some way
    1
  10. i suppose if i'd have been a dick, we'd have been off to a bad start. i'm trying to get away from all the snide stuff & move toward actually sharing ideas. maybe i'm finally gowing up
    1
  11. i know exactly what you mean. i;ve worked in 2 pharmacies (1 outpatient & 1 ltc [long term care]) that was run by non-clinicians. i gained a LOT of weight both times. i guess it's a thin line to walk. what's more, as a humane & humble person, it's tough to talk down to people but they often leave you no choice.
    1
  12. i don't know your politics or your set of ethics. barring some kind of ridiculous racism or whathaveyou, you're alright with me. cheers!
    1
  13. it's a tough call though. anyone can understand how cenk felt. i had a buddy try to call me stupid because i told him his theory that azt is a chemotherapy drug was horseshit. i made no argument except that he didn't have a biology background so the shouldn't try to argue pharmacokinetics. the other part of my argument is that i'd studied biology for many years while WORKING in pharmacy. when you hear such outrageous shit, it's hard to keep your cool.
    1
  14. they don't ignore the facts, they conveniently deny them
    1