Why is that so many of the melanin-challenged, while vocally expounding on the intellectual superiority of unpigmented culture, then go on to quote pigmented individuals as their source of information? In what way does this consolidate their claim?
Possibly it is because the words of the pigmented demonstrate their (the malanin-challenged's) points. Their words bewrayeth them.
But would that not indicate that the melanin-challenged are following the intellectual judgement of the pigmented? Which would defeat the point of the exercise (if any)?
What skin color? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not necessarily, if the melanin-challenged are quoting the perceived idiocy of the pigmented to demonstrate their (the melanin-challenged's) thesis/these.
Not at all. It is a matter of confirming a hypothesis with accrued evidence. Again, the words of the pigmented demonstrate their (the malanin-challenged's) points.
T(a)inted evidence? Is that the opinion of the majority of the pigmented? It would appear that the melanin challenged and the pigmented experts have a lot in common.
Is there any indication of an assumption that pigmented != human? One wishes to avoid redundant stereotypes which culminate in a flooding of graphics unrelated to and with no apparent contribution to the topic at hand. Use of generic terms keeps the topic in focus.
Perhaps you could be persuaded to contribute a cogent argument, in the face of all previous evidence to the contrary? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why is 'Sam' committed to authoring threads about a classification of people she claims is wholly fictitious?
