The Andrew Show- A show for white kids!

[Blackthornone]

You are taking the fact of environmental effect on phenotype (which I have not denied) and calling any local similarities (that have endured over time) a race. The logical fallacy you're committing is composition.

Belief in race is racism, which is the foundation of racial supremacism. Supremacism is the natural progression of belief in an arbitrary, unfounded standard of categorizing people. Similarly to religion, it will inevitably be used to hold one group as higher than another because there is no way to oppose such within reason. It is not founded upon reason, and cannot be delimited by any objective standard. Anyone can claim anything about it so long as there are idiots to keep the faith. It doesn't matter if they come from a different planet, or a different continent, or a different corner of the continent. Anyone can rationalize anything about an idea that has no meaning.

The foundation of racial supremacism is ego, not race. There are lots of ways or things people come up with to justify oppressing others, whether it be a group of people or only one person seeking to oppress any way they can.
If it isn't race, it's "my hair gel or my suit costs more than yours, which makes me better than you."

People have been oppressing other people long before the issue of race ever existed. I'm sure there was oppression in Africa before people migrated North.

Blaming the acknowledgment of race as far as promoting elitism is to
blame something that can be used as a weapon to hurt people that isn't a weapon instead of blaming those who misuse it to hurt people.

Race, ie identifiable physical characteristics in people isn't arbitrary, because it wasn't created by nature arbitrarily. Identifying same and acknowledging their real traits isn't arbitrary either.

Acknowledging race does not inevitably lead to holding one group higher than another. Some people will certainly try, but not all. That is THEIR flaw, not a flaw with acknowledging race.
The concept of race is based upon reason and can be understood by it.
You act as if just because there are shades of it making it almost impossible to differentiate between two people who are close invalidates the fact that you can differentiate them both from two other people from thousands of miles away.

You CAN test the blood for genetic markers, for example, to get that scientific proof you seem to deny exists. All races have African genetic markers, but Africans ONLY have African genetic markers. Europeans have European, Central Asian, and African markers. These markers form after people have lived in a certain area long enough. The video Journey Of Man explains this.

 

[devilof76]

Ego is sense of self. Identification with one's 'race' (people who share attributes that arose from breeding within a discrete locale) is not ego directed behavior. Using that terminology, what they are identifying with is superego, and supremacist movements (the Nazis, quite explicitly) are anti-ego. To live for the good of the Volk is not egoistic. To live for any collective is not a selfish mode of action.

Does that sound familiar? It should. The supremacy of the group over the individual has ALWAYS dominated human moral thinking. The rise of classical liberals, Enlightenment values is the rare exception. And it's no surprise which types of belief systems have most loudly objected to that aspect of Western civilization (the Nazis are at the top of that list). One 'people' oppressing another because they are 'not our people, and therefore lesser than we' is pure, primitive, blood tied tribalism.

It is not egoistic. It is the opposite.

The error in such 'cultures' is not that one is better than the other, it is that blood doesn't matter. It determines absolutely nothing but looks, it arose from centuries of purposeless, environmental accident, and it can be completely turned on its head with a single roll in the hay. Value, character, identity are not caused by blood. Culture is not genetically transmitted. The only reason there is an appearance of 'race' is because people have for the most part identified with this arbitrary, non-volitionally caused grouping and opted to breed within that group.

It does not matter how many generations of breeding has genetically reinforced the prevalence of certain charteristics if no one identifies with them for the purpose of reproduction. Your 'races' vanish in the blink of an eye if people chose to not mate locally. But the only way they're going to do that is if mate selection happens on the basis of individual preference (as opposed to group survival) and that only happens if the particular human beings exercise their EGO.

Race is a myth, an accident of environment, and of people who
chose to be slaves to their environment. It is not per design of nature in the way that instinct driven animals reproduce. Humans are not driven by instinct, but they can fool themselves into thinking they do by choosing to abandon their egos and allow the will of their people to act as a surrogate for what a fully human being is driven by: the will of their self, their volition, their ego.

You will never have peace between peoples who identify themselves as a people. That is not how human beings were 'designed' to survive. Acting against nature results in failure for biological entities and when the question of why arises when the ideas and values should have been as infallible as instinct, it is not their group who takes the blame. History is replete with evidence.

Environment alone will never create a race. Too much cousin lovin' where tribes are concerned to seriously think otherwise. Maybe that's why people can't get their heads out of it. This myth is a self-perpetuating trap. WWII wasn't even enough to teach the lesson.

 

[Blackthornone]

Ego is sense of self. Identification with one's 'race' (people who share attributes that arose from breeding within a discrete locale) is not ego directed behavior. Using that terminology, what they are identifying with is superego, and supremacist movements (the Nazis, quite explicitly) are anti-ego. To live for the good of the Volk is not egoistic. To live for any collective is not a selfish mode of action.

Does that sound familiar? It should. The supremacy of the group over the individual has ALWAYS dominated human moral thinking. The rise of classical liberals, Enlightenment values is the rare exception. And it's no surprise which types of belief systems have most loudly objected to that aspect of Western civilization (the Nazis are at the top of that list). One 'people' oppressing another because they are 'not our people, and therefore lesser than we' is pure, primitive, blood tied tribalism.

It is not egoistic. It is the opposite.

The error in such 'cultures' is not that one is better than the other, it is that blood doesn't matter. It determines absolutely nothing but looks, it arose from centuries of purposeless, environmental accident, and it can be completely turned on its head with a single roll in the hay. Value, character, identity are not caused by blood. Culture is not genetically transmitted. The only reason there is an appearance of 'race' is because people have for the most part identified with this arbitrary, non-volitionally caused grouping and opted to breed within that group.

It does not matter how many generations of breeding has genetically reinforced the prevalence of certain charteristics if no one identifies with them for the purpose of reproduction. Your 'races' vanish in the blink of an eye if people chose to not mate locally. But the only way they're going to do that is if mate selection happens on the basis of individual preference (as opposed to group survival) and that only happens if the particular human beings exercise their EGO.

Race is a myth, an accident of environment, and of people who
chose to be slaves to their environment. It is not per design of nature in the way that instinct driven animals reproduce. Humans are not driven by instinct, but they can fool themselves into thinking they do by choosing to abandon their egos and allow the will of their people to act as a surrogate for what a fully human being is driven by: the will of their self, their volition, their ego.

You will never have peace between peoples who identify themselves as a people. That is not how human beings were 'designed' to survive. Acting against nature results in failure for biological entities and when the question of why arises when the ideas and values should have been as infallible as instinct, it is not their group who takes the blame. History is replete with evidence.

Environment alone will never create a race. Too much cousin lovin' where tribes are concerned to seriously think otherwise. Maybe that's why people can't get their heads out of it. This myth is a self-perpetuating trap. WWII wasn't even enough to teach the lesson.

I see the ego as egomania. Egomania is perhaps a better word then. Some people will always find away to exploit and oppress others, and if they don't use one real or imagine excuse, they will use another one.

Race determines more than just looks, like sensitivity to heat and light. It isn't purposeless, quite the opposite, and it isn't an accident, either, because it happened all over the world in every continent. That is no accident.

It cannot be COMPLETELY "turned in it's head with a single roll in the hay" either. True, it's integrity and clarity of purpose are undermined in terms of how effective a subsequent offspring is, but the evidence is in the blood, shown by the genetic markers.

Just because something can be undermined of eliminated quickly does not mean that it never existed, nor that it could not again.
You say that if "Your 'races' vanish in the blink of an eye if people chose to not mate locally." So what? That doesn't prove that race never existed.

Environment alone is the only thing that does create a race, and did create races.


"You will never have peace between peoples who identify themselves as a people." Not necessarily. There are plenty of peoples that can get along more than they don't. The fact is that there has always been conflict among people, period. Whether it is individual people, or between groups, there has always been conflict, so to say that it is "people identifying themselves as a people" that causes conflict, that is nonsense. "A people" is like an extended family.

"That is not how human beings were 'designed' to survive. " How can you prove that? How can you prove that human beings don't survive better through solidarity? If anything, humans survive better because of solidarity. There is solidarity, and there is utter chaos, with everyone out for themselves.


Here is an interesting quote:
"Acting against nature results in failure for biological entities"

Nature made race. nature caused the races to develop for the purpose of better survival. By disregarding race, you act against nature, and so results in failure for the human race. I would never have made so bold a statement, but you have made it instead.

That one statement you made contradicts your argument about race.
To dishonor the design of race results in failure for biological entities to what degree in what way, is the question.

 

[devilof76]

Anatomical features are insufficient to guarantee survival in human beings. At a certain point, it becomes irrelevant, otherwise people born in North America would be dying when they emigrated to Asia. Survival capacity would also be radically diminished when people from one of your imaginary races bred with people from another. Human beings would be exponentially dropping like flies the further they moved from racial purity.

Human survival is not guaranteed in any significant way by anatomy. Humans live by thought, something that perceptual level, instinctual, materially determined animals can't do, and thereby depend exclusively upon their physical composition and automatic conscious functions. In humans, it doesn't matter unless they have abandoned their humanity and chose to live like dogs, pigs and sheep (and if you think such creatures are no more or less inclined to war and oppression than genuine human beings, then you don't know a goddamned thing about history, and are, as I've suspected since the first time you posted, completely talkig out your ***).

Nature doesn't have 'purposes'. It is, and it does. There is no template out there, floating in the ether, labeled 'Asian blueprint', 'African blueprint', or whatever. Nature did not design races, and then start making babies like some kind of assembly line. Features common to specific climates developed over millions of years, and probably not in humans first. Humans inherited chromosomes, and mixed them according to their own desires and purposes.

Anyway, you're not listening to me, and you haven't since the beginning. You're wrapped up in some kind of racist intelligent design fantasy and you're convinced that I'm too dumb to comprehend that when people ****, genes are passed down. What you're missing is that people ****, and it doesn't matter what genes cavement passed down to them. I realize you have some kind of religious impediment operating in your idea of what nature is and how it works, and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. The only reason I'm wasting my time responding to you is so that anyone else who might be reading this will not be drawn in by your racist horse****.

So continue to honor your race and think that it makes you and your progeny better adapted to live in nature. It worked for the Axis powers, right?

 

[EVILFACE]

So a white kid said something bad?

 

[devilof76]

He couldn't help it. His environment made him do it.

It's science.

 

[Blackthornone]

Anatomical features are insufficient to guarantee survival in human beings. At a certain point, it becomes irrelevant, otherwise people born in North America would be dying when they emigrated to Asia. Survival capacity would also be radically diminished when people from one of your imaginary races bred with people from another. Human beings would be exponentially dropping like flies the further they moved from racial purity.

Human survival is not guaranteed in any significant way by anatomy. Humans live by thought, something that perceptual level, instinctual, materially determined animals can't do, and thereby depend exclusively upon their physical composition and automatic conscious functions. In humans, it doesn't matter unless they have abandoned their humanity and chose to live like dogs, pigs and sheep (and if you think such creatures are no more or less inclined to war and oppression than genuine human beings, then you don't know a goddamned thing about history, and are, as I've suspected since the first time you posted, completely talkig out your ***).

Nature doesn't have 'purposes'. It is, and it does. There is no template out there, floating in the ether, labeled 'Asian blueprint', 'African blueprint', or whatever. Nature did not design races, and then start making babies like some kind of assembly line. Features common to specific climates developed over millions of years, and probably not in humans first. Humans inherited chromosomes, and mixed them according to their own desires and purposes.

Anyway, you're not listening to me, and you haven't since the beginning. You're wrapped up in some kind of racist intelligent design fantasy and you're convinced that I'm too dumb to comprehend that when people ****, genes are passed down. What you're missing is that people ****, and it doesn't matter what genes cavement passed down to them. I realize you have some kind of religious impediment operating in your idea of what nature is and how it works, and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. The only reason I'm wasting my time responding to you is so that anyone else who might be reading this will not be drawn in by your racist horse****.

So continue to honor your race and think that it makes you and your progeny better adapted to live in nature. It worked for the Axis powers, right?

I never said guarantee survival. I said maximize efficiency and the economy of energy expenditure. It's about maximizing ultimate potential. Of course people survive and can excel anywhere, but what about ultimate potential?
There is an Asian blueprint. It is the Asian genetic marker, like I said, and was mentioned in the video. It doesn't say blueprint in it, but it is a measurable indicator of where a person's ancestors have been, and what race they have been.
You're correct in that it isn't floating about in the ether, though. It is floating about in the blood.

I am aware that animals are prone to violence, yes.

Humans inherited chromasomes, but the amount of genetic variation in any given area of the world wasn't as great as you make it out to be.

You talk as if every population of human beings on Earth has always been integrated equally with every type of racial group there was.
That isn't how it was at all.

According to the research, it didn't take millions of years to develop a genetic marker, which indicated a change in race to match a new climate. It took about 20,000 years. That's the scientific estimate. You are way off. You are at least 100 times off. (20,000 is 1/100th of 2 million)

The real question is of course, does someone of mixed race have the same ultimate potential as a human being as someone of purely European race in Europe? Or mixed in Asia vs a pure Asian, or mixed in Africa vs a pure African? This is all other factors being equal, of course. There are some people who make more of their potential than others, so you would need a big enough group to account for that.

This is something I would really like to see proven scientifically, to be true or false.

Everything else is speculation, one way or another. Some perspectives are more logical, while others are based entirely upon modern pragmatism, operating as if the status quo, with all of the bad judgment of human beings, and nondiscrimination as far as where they live is unchangeable, even though the very dynamic of that is by definition, changeable.

As far as the Axis powers, I did not know that the Japanese had a eugenics program. That really is news to me.

The Nazis believed Aryans were from another planet and by implication, denied that race was a product of genetic adaptation to climate, proving how short sighted they were, by maybe 20,000 years.

The Nazis killed the Jews because they believed that they looked so similar to Aryans that there was a danger of accidental interbreeding with them, which would pollute their Aryan race.

I don't know if the Italians had a eugenics program, either. Of course, there is also Mexico, who was invited into the Axis powers via The Zimmerman Note, who were of mixed race, so it is hard to say what was going on there. Perhaps the Nazis intended to use them and then kill them when it was most convenient? I don't know.

 

[jstep13]

This kkkid will be a perfect candidate for a Tosh.O appearance real soon

 

[devilof76]

Environment doesn't matter when you can recreate your surroundings. Anatomy doesn't matter in humans.

Animals live by violence. There is no 'potential' or 'tendency'. It is how they live and die.

And the Nazis did not persecute the Jews because they thought they were from another planet. That's a rationaliztion they concocted at the height of their own megalomania. They were racist and thought that the Jews were compromising their 'ultimate potential' as a racially pure nation. The belief arose from the dominant philosphy in the country, which was belligerently post-Kantian (Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) propped up by basic European provincialism.

I don't really know or care what you're babbling about now. Splitting hairs and dramatizing non-essentials. The blueprints are a result, not an origin. The markers may have existed in humans for 20,000, but the characteristics that comprise them were developed over millions of years. Humans evolved from prior species. We did not just fall out of the sky.

 

[crows]

This kkkid will be a perfect candidate for a Tosh.O appearance real soon

That is a good point I would love for Tosh to interview this kid.

Probably will not happen though.....

 

[Blackthornone]

Environment doesn't matter when you can recreate your surroundings. Anatomy doesn't matter in humans.

Animals live by violence. There is no 'potential' or 'tendency'. It is how they live and die.

And the Nazis did not persecute the Jews because they thought they were from another planet. That's a rationaliztion they concocted at the height of their own megalomania. They were racist and thought that the Jews were compromising their 'ultimate potential' as a racially pure nation. The belief arose from the dominant philosphy in the country, which was belligerently post-Kantian (Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) propped up by basic European provincialism.

I don't really know or care what you're babbling about now. Splitting hairs and dramatizing non-essentials. The blueprints are a result, not an origin. The markers may have existed in humans for 20,000, but the characteristics that comprise them were developed over millions of years. Humans evolved from prior species. We did not just fall out of the sky.

I suspect the Nazis thought the Aryans were from another planet for a lot longer than they let on. It just took them a lot longer to believe it to be time to make that fact public. You don't just come up with that sort of thing overnight, do you? However, that really doesn't have anything to do with what I am talking about. You brought up the Nazis.


I've been talking about ultimate potential, and not just survival, from the very beginning. You thought I was talking about survival all this time?

Sure it may have taken millions of years to become human, but after they became human and black in Africa, they migrated and diversified their genetics in a way that allowed them to best adapt to their new climates. That is no small accomplishment.

You imply that it was just cosmetic. That is insulting to all those tens of thousands of years of human striving to develop that. Race is more than just cosmetic, because FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION in the real world, not the arbitrary capricious one that human beings developed.

 

[Lejuan]

...

...

...

...

 

[devilof76]

I suspect the Nazis thought the Aryans were from another planet for a lot longer than they let on. It just took them a lot longer to believe it to be time to make that fact public. You don't just come up with that sort of thing overnight, do you? However, that really doesn't have anything to do with what I am talking about. You brought up the Nazis.

I did. Because that's where belief in bull**** gets you.

And if you're a bunch of psychotic mystics with delusions of conquering the world to impose your psychotic ideology of sacrifice of the individual for the greater good, you can dream up just about anything you want overnight. Whatever's convenient to keep the delusion safe.

I've been talking about ultimate potential, and not just survival, from the very beginning. You thought I was talking about survival all this time?

Survival is all a primitive people would gain from having bodies adapted to their environments. Ultimate potential is intellectual in humans, which has nothing to do with environment or anatomy.

Have I said that already?

Sure it may have taken millions of years to become human, but after they became human and black in Africa, they migrated and diversified their genetics in a way that allowed them to best adapt to their new climates. That is no small accomplishment.

Chasing your food (not much of an accomplishment) will bring you many strange places, and that's assuming that there was only one point of origin.

You imply that it was just cosmetic.

It is now.

That is insulting to all those tens of thousands of years of human striving to develop that.

You mean human ****ing. And I guess they'll have to be insulted. Anyone can ****, and it seems that's all they did for their first 30,000 years.

Race is more than just cosmetic, because FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION in the real world, not the arbitrary capricious one that human beings developed.

Human beings are the apex of an evolutionary trend in which emphasis upon developing the body for survival shifted to emphasis on development of consciousness for that purpose. The body and the tasks it can perform are necessary to support the mind and to execute it's will, but with only a body, humans would be snacks in a matter of hours. With a mind, however, human potential is limitless, to the point where they are not even required to stay on the planet from which they were spawned.

The only important features of the physical human form are the ability to use tools, travel long distances, and accomodate a brain with high capacity for storage. Commonality of features is more than likely a consequence of stagnation and inertia. The eras in which the breeding required to genetically reinforce the phenotypic sets common to each continent were not exactly paragons of ultimate human potential on display. That distinction belongs to the modern era, which incidentally has done more damage to ancient breeding stock than any other.

 

[Blackthornone]

Survival is all a primitive people would gain from having bodies adapted to their environments. Ultimate potential is intellectual in humans, which has nothing to do with environment or anatomy.

Have I said that already?



Chasing your food (not much of an accomplishment) will bring you many strange places, and that's assuming that there was only one point of origin.



It is now.



You mean human ****ing. And I guess they'll have to be insulted. Anyone can ****, and it seems that's all they did for their first 30,000 years.



Human beings are the apex of an evolutionary trend in which emphasis upon developing the body for survival shifted to emphasis on development of consciousness for that purpose. The body and the tasks it can perform are necessary to support the mind and to execute it's will, but with only a body, humans would be snacks in a matter of hours. With a mind, however, human potential is limitless, to the point where they are not even required to stay on the planet from which they were spawned.

The only important features of the physical human form are the ability to use tools, travel long distances, and accomodate a brain with high capacity for storage. Commonality of features is more than likely a consequence of stagnation and inertia. The eras in which the breeding required to genetically reinforce the phenotypic sets common to each continent were not exactly paragons of ultimate human potential on display. That distinction belongs to the modern era, which incidentally has done more damage to ancient breeding stock than any other.

Intellect does have to do with anatomy. If the body is injured or if you are very cold or very hot, it reduces the intellect.
Stress of all kinds can reduce one's ability to focus as well.


Migrating was done to chase food, but adaptation to climate was above and beyond that. Besides, if changing to another race had no value as you claim, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The fact that it did proves it's validity.

Human beings can exert much power over their surroundings, but not to the point at which they are above the laws of nature, as you imply they now are.


This is a sentence I really like. Well said, only I would use the word "process" instead of trend. Kudos to an excellent sentence. Trend seems more like a temporary thing, while process seems more ongoing.-

"Human beings are the apex of an evolutionary trend in which emphasis upon developing the body for survival shifted to emphasis on development of consciousness for that purpose. "

I also agree with this:
"The body and the tasks it can perform are necessary to support the mind and to execute it's will, but with only a body, humans would be snacks in a matter of hours. With a mind, however, human potential is limitless, to the point where they are not even required to stay on the planet from which they were spawned.

The only important features of the physical human form are the ability to use tools, travel long distances, and accommodate a brain with high capacity for storage."

However, this I see as speculation which has no logical basis.

"Commonality of features is more than likely a consequence of stagnation and inertia. The eras in which the breeding required to genetically reinforce the phenotypic sets common to each continent were not exactly paragons of ultimate human potential on display."

To quite the contrary, I think that they definitely were "paragons of ultimate human potential on display", for THEIR TIME.
Based upon the Baghdad Battery, I would say that human beings achieved far more impressive things 2 thousand years ago than they do today, relative to time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery

If human beings could invent an electrical battery 2000 years ago, I think they should have been a lot further along than they are today at that rate of progress. It seems to me that something must have stagnated that progress.

""That distinction belongs to the modern era, which incidentally has done more damage to ancient breeding stock than any other.
"

I also disagree with this, for reasons stated above, and because humanity has developed technology at the cost of the environment, like loss of clean air, reduction of the concentration of oxygen in the air, due to deforestation, which has a significant very destructive effect on human life.

There is also water pollution and nuclear radiation, not to mention near Eco-collapse due to a genetically engineered crop which could have destroyed food production everywhere had the fields not been burned to the ground once the hazard was realized.


There are a lot of other destructive technologies today which are the result of pursuing technological innovation without the concern for long term dangers, because the focus is on short term profits, rather than long term quality of life. There is a wholesale reduction of ethics today compared to how things were hundreds of years ago and a disconnect to the laws of nature which has brought us to this.

Too much domination of nature by using it as raw materials according to human being's notion of how the world should be, rather than observing how nature works, and working with it and enhancing it for much better results.


Modern "progress" is a short sighted progression to the grave for all humanity.
At least in the past, people invented things that only served to make life better without doing harm to human health.

It's like we all on the Titanic before it goes down into the icy water!

 

[Blackthornone]

The fact that nature made race proves it’s validity.
There would never have been any race but blacks unless there was a NEED for it.
Nature wouldn’t make it for no reason.

It wouldn’t make it for cosmetics. That is absurd.
Human beings can’t change the world so that the laws of nature no longer apply to them.

Nature is the foundation of human life. Without it, human life cannot exist. Without a solid foundation, a building collapses.


It would be one thing if a mixed race retains ALL of the advantages of all of the racers in one person, but it doesn’t.

Race is genetic specialization, and so advantage in one area must come at the expense of loss of advantage in another.

All white people have black ancestors, and yet white people are more vulnerable to sunburn and skin cancer than black people. That proves that genetic diversity doesn't make humans superior. In fact, all white people possess black, Central Asian, AND White genetics. All that diversity doesn't make them as fortified as blacks , with the LEAST genetic diversity, against mere sunburn.

Again, human beings cannot make themselves above the very laws that created them, so the laws of nature and race will always apply to them, regardless of how arrogant they become that they believe they can change the world enough to be above the laws of nature.

Human beings can never be exempt from the laws of nature, because their lives depend upon nature to survive.

Anatomy does affect intellectual ability. When you are very cold, it is very difficult to think. If you are just a little bit too cold, that might make the difference between making the right choice or not at any given moment. If you are a little too cold all of the time, that can have a cumulative effect on the quality of your thinking.

That is why race is very important to life.

 

[Freak_Zombie]

But I like race mixing
Lol
Shows done by racists sure are entertaining

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[devilof76]

Did not read.

 

[batfan08]

You guys have too much time on your hands. I've posted things that long before, but, normally, those uberlong posts have a 1:100 ratio attached to them. I don't know how you guys can keep the banter going for that long. Blackthornone in particular.

This thread at page 1: mildly entertaining, yet sad.

This thread now: very boring, TL; DR; Bye Bye.

 

[CelticPredator]

Now with guest stars!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dokTEFFfg5Q[/ame]

 

[batfan08]

Looks like Andy needs to sit Opie down and explain to him what Racism is, and why it's bad.