Anonymous asked in TravelAfrica & Middle EastSouth Africa · 1 decade ago

After READING the RANTING of ALF who, as EXPECTED, was quickly SUPPORTED by BULL, I WONDER whether.....?

there are questions which are dangerous not on grounds of ideology or political correctness, but because the most obvious answers to them could ultimately disintegrate your conscience?

I’d appreciate response from the two…Alf and Bull!!



BULL - are out!

ALF - As an intellectual, you should try to be original - granted you can use other sources, and use that info, the not intelligent call that research, but pasting someone's ideas to answer my question is sheer plagiarism. You could have just pasted the link ….. I have long doubted your originality, thanks for proving my doubts right. I now understand that you have a serious inferiority complex…you even fail to answer questions from people of lower IQ.

Update 2:

*ADD* know that you are lying...if that is so, you would have acknowledged the source...but you pasted knowing well that some morons would think that you are intelligent and start giving you thumbs up. You didn't expect me to know that your answer is a cut and paste....your fake intelligence is shattered......

5 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    ALF and Bull seem to be racist punks. These two dont understand that the world is changing and that extremist have no place in this society. Generalising blacks is just a demonstration of your less intelligence. Boys, you r Idiots; why would we bother answering your question anyway

  • 1 decade ago

    I fail to see why I should become involved in yet another debate or feel obligated to defend myself as if I have been found guilty of a crime.

    I posted my views as regards Alf's question, which in my mind was humourous, my answer was not an attack on any race group or insulting to any particular contributor so I ask now, why do you call me out to defend the evils I must have committed in your mind when in reality no such evil occurred?


    Instead of labelling everyone as racists you should attend a schooling programme for the illiterate.

    Your answer is pathetic at best and I wonder how many children over the age of 10 would use the word "punk".....grow up.

  • 1 decade ago

    Gosh Zim, did you have to entertain this racist, Alf?

    I had no issues with his ANC and government talk. He just crossed the line when he started saying blacks have a low IQ (Which he so believes to be fact because he's deluded by his hate for blacks). Then he covers it with another lengthy piece of "masepa" thinking that the first part of that wont stick in our minds. Despite that, he says we are backwards (generalizing to start off with) yet his values belong to a time when some of his forefathers believed bathing was only for Sunday.

    Hon' a woman can do anything a man can and even more! If women couldn't you wouldnt exist! (though that wouldn't have been such a bad thing).

  • 1 decade ago

    i see alf's pal brad is not here. has he been mugged in nyc

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The seductiveness of liberalism is that the great majority of its positions represent what is right taken to a wrong extreme. In race, liberals are right to think that men should be equal before the law, but wrong to think they are equal in intelligence, behavior, racial characteristics or in any other substantive way. In gender matters, liberals are right to assert that women should not be chained to hearth and home, but wrong to think that women can be just like men or that most women would be happy in a role other than that dictated by 'anatomy is destiny'. In sexuality, liberals are right that sex does not have to be rigidly limited to marriage, but wrong to think that sex is merely another form of recreation such as picnics or quoits. In homosexuality, liberals are right to assert that there is no argument about taste, and that there is no reason to regulate the behavior of consenting adults in private; but wrong to assert that homosexuality is equal in social desirability to heterosexuality, that homosexuals are fit for familial relationships such as marriage and child-raising, or that homosexuals belong as scoutmasters, soldiers, teachers or the like. In religion, liberals are right that God is dead, but wrong to think that an institution like religion, which has proved its value and staying power over thousands of years of social evolution, can be safely destroyed without first developing new institutions which will produce equally effective moral suasions and social stability. In short, by being half-right, liberalism has been worse than completely wrong, because what came before -- no matter how mistaken in some cosmic sense -- had at least passed the test of time, while liberalism has not only failed every test to which it has been subject, but is on the verge of leaving the world's greatest civilization in ruins, and in the process extinguishing the small but very special group of men and women who produced that civilization in a genocide of the rising tide of Turd-world color.

    Zim$/Moloi - As self appointed spokesperson for the backward you should take my advice and learn to phrase your questions correctly. You never asked for my opinion and so I posted the views of the Birdman on the dangers of Liberalism which has its roots in Marxism.I was quite correct in not posting the link as evidenced in the response of the chattering monkey,Innocentia, who is unable to click on the link showing the research into the lower IQ levels of sub Saharan Africans. I sometimes find it appropriate to deal at their level.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.