Quoting: LoneStranger
Then why dont you? You dont want it to be a better place?...
Of course I do. I don't know how to explain this in English, in my "mind" "figuratively" I see people as one. But if you look at it from a distance, we must admit there are differences. Those differences don't have to hold us back to make it better though of course.
Quoting: LoneStranger
I have done a few times. Wikipedia is the last place I would like to consult. It is a very weak encyclopedia indeed. For many reason, which I dont want to keep typing on and on. If you have enough common sense, you would realise yourself.
Well I find that hard to believe, since if you did, you'd know that what I explained about race is exact.
About Wikipedia: You are wrong when saying Wikipedia is a weak encyclopedia. Since you won't type an arguementation I've no idea on which points you find it weak, so I'll just link this.
Nature Magazine, which is one of the world's leading scientific magazines & is known for it's independent journalism did a head to head comparison of Wikipedia (English) & The Encyclopedia Britannica (E.B.)
The E.B. is the world's oldest English encyclopedia. It's considered the world's most accurate & features over 19 full time editors & 4000 experts working on it full-time.
I'll quote from the article:
"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.""People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica," Twidale adds. "Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of information quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources can be compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one."Article nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
Comparison List nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html
In short: even the world's best encyclopedia is innacurate, E.B. is more accurate than Wikipedia, but the difference is marginal.
Quoting: LoneStranger
Is that your ultimate source of confidence, that finally you can say yourself as a caucasian...because probably you are a Persian? ... If the white supremecy believers are wrong doers... then darker people who desperately try to proove themselves as white also equal wrong doers. Such people constantly assure that White Is The Only Right. Such people are also equally racist.
I think you're mistaking me for a white supremacist which I'm not. I'd have no problem being a Persian, I wouldn't feel ashamed of it. I don't hold prejudices against any walk of life.
The online dating thing was to give you a real life example to your statement that Polish, Italian & Persian are 3 different races. They are not, they are categorised under "Caucasian", like e.g. on a dating site.
Quoting: LoneStranger
If Iran has anything common in this world with anybody... then it is North India and Afghanistan. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS!...Being the wise man you are!
If you must INSIST on your wikipedia...
Please read here (and article from you trusted ally):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-India_relations
I fail to see how this is relevant. I read it & it talks about their history together and their friendship.
I'm sure both countries have lots in common & maintain a great friendship, they have lots in common & share a part of history. Ok. I don't see the link in race, except they both belong to the same.
Quoting: LoneStranger
HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS!...Being the wise man you are!
You know Lone, arguementing or explaining something without mocking the other party is indeed harder, but you should try it. It adds more value to what you say.
Quoting: LoneStranger
I dont have any intention to break you dream.
What dream? I fear that again you're mistaking me for a white supremacist or something :-\ I'm NOT.