Why "colored people" is offensive, but "people of color" is the politically correct term?

[Ringel05]

You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waist of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.

Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?

Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.

What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

 

[Asclepias]

Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?

Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.

What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

 

[Ringel05]

Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.

What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

 

[Ravi]

What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

 

[Ringel05]

Also take the mirror analogy, hold up a color wheel to a white (not silver) mirror and all those colors are reflected back meaning what you see in the mirror is "possessed" (contained) by that mirror, now do the same with a pure black mirror and you will see only black because all light wavelengths are absorbed. Now given that if one wants to make the argument that because black absorbs then it is the one that is possessive and since white reflects it is not more power to em. I have no problem with that, write a paper and submit it for peer review.

 

[Ringel05]

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

Mix all colors and you get brown not black. I also took years of art in school, was extremely good at it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.

Look it up Bozo. He's right. Did you go to school?

 

[Ravi]

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

Mix all colors and you get brown not black. I also took years of art in school, was extremely good at it.

Not really.

It depends on how much of each color you mix. Or which "colors" you use.

You can mix a brown and you can mix a black.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

Mix all colors and you get brown not black. I also took years of art in school, was extremely good at it.

Not really.

It depends on how much of each color you mix. Or which "colors" you use.

You can mix a brown and you can mix a black.

Again black and white are neutrals not colors, mix all the "colors" and you get brown.

 

[Iceweasel]

Color mixing in the real world is different than theory because of whatever medium is made of, various chemicals, binders, thinners, whatever. I've mixed up quite a lot of various colors and they behave a bit differently. It would be very hard to come up with black, maybe impossible. I never got close. The more colors you mix the more it looks like mud.

 

[Ravi]

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

Mix all colors and you get brown not black. I also took years of art in school, was extremely good at it.

Not really.

It depends on how much of each color you mix. Or which "colors" you use.

You can mix a brown and you can mix a black.

Again black and white are neutrals not colors, mix all the "colors" and you get brown.

What colors mixed together make black

 

[irosie91]

there is a difference between color mixing using PIGMENTS and color mixing
using LIGHTS (wave lengths) ---color perception at the retinal level (sensory
nerves) is based on wave length

 

[Asclepias]

What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

I didnt say it had anything to do with racial designations. What I said was that its obvious white people deigned to define white as the presence of all colors instead of the absence of all colors due to racial reasoning. You should take art yourself since you dont seem to understand what you are talking about.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.

Look it up Bozo. He's right. Did you go to school?

Yes. Thats how I received my degree.. Now did you go to school? Apply critical thinking. How can something that reflects all colors = the presence of all colors? How can something that encompasses all colors mean the abscence of all colors?

 

[Ringel05]

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

Mix all colors and you get brown not black. I also took years of art in school, was extremely good at it.

Not really.

It depends on how much of each color you mix. Or which "colors" you use.

You can mix a brown and you can mix a black.

Again black and white are neutrals not colors, mix all the "colors" and you get brown.

What colors mixed together make black

Answers.com? You're kidding, right?
I have actually tried back in my college days to mix all the primary colors to make black (equal amounts), every time it came out a very dark brown. Go ahead and try it, video tape it so that if you come up with a pure black you can post proof. Sorry Rav but i won't hold my breath.
I have even seen the primary color overlays that show it theoretically produces pure black but in the real world I have yet to see that happen. BTW I have no problem if proven wrong, but I need to see documented valid proof.

 

[Ringel05]

Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

I didnt say it had anything to do with racial designations. What I said was that its obvious white people deigned to define white as the presence of all colors instead of the absence of all colors due to racial reasoning. You should take art yourself since you dont seem to understand what you are talking about.

Racial designations, you just used one, "white people"................ You missed a couple of posts by the way....... Took years of art, pretty damn good at it too.........

What I said was that its obvious white people deigned to define white as the presence of all colors instead of the absence of all colors due to racial reasoning

Noooo, that not one bit racist.........

Self delusional much........

 

[Ravi]

He's right though. Mix all the colors and you get black. So in reality, black contains all the colors while white contains none of them.

Mix all colors and you get brown not black. I also took years of art in school, was extremely good at it.

Not really.

It depends on how much of each color you mix. Or which "colors" you use.

You can mix a brown and you can mix a black.

Again black and white are neutrals not colors, mix all the "colors" and you get brown.

What colors mixed together make black

Answers.com? You're kidding, right?
I have actually tried back in my college days to mix all the primary colors to make black (equal amounts), every time it came out a very dark brown. Go ahead and try it, video tape it so that if you come up with a pure black you can post proof. Sorry Rav but i won't hold my breath.
I have even seen the primary color overlays that show it theoretically produces pure black but in the real world I have yet to see that happen. BTW I have no problem if proven wrong, but I need to see documented valid proof.

Pure black! No way! That is a color only produced in nature.

 

[irosie91]

Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.

Look it up Bozo. He's right. Did you go to school?

Yes. Thats how I received my degree.. Now did you go to school? Apply critical thinking. How can something that reflects all colors = the presence of all colors? How can something that encompasses all colors mean the abscence of all colors?

easy-----COLOR is determined by light wave length-----not a bunch of chemicals
in a pot of pigment. When you SEE color you see LIGHT-----the pot of pigment does not fly into your eyeballs and stimulate the nerve endings upon your retina.
GOT IT NOW -----college kid....?

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.

Obviously you don't understand the property of light wavelengths, it's an observable scientific phenomenon that white reflects, based on the proven principle of light white reflects all colors, also based on the proven principle of light black absorbs all light hence all colors (color is light). It makes perfect sense if one understands at least the basics of how light works, the only one here trying to tie it racially is you...... I wonder why?

You keep agreeing with me on the science part. What I am asking you is how can something that absorbs all colors be the absence of all colors? How can something that repels all colors possess them? Its obvious that the person attempting to claim white is the presence of all colors had a racial motivation for his inconsistency.

Take art and learn to "mix" colors then you'll probably understand. By being a reflective wavelength white reflects therefore is possessive of all it reflects (take a mirror as an example), the absence of light means that all that goes into it is absorbed and not reflected (take a Black Hole for example). Again I'm talking about pure white and pure black something none of us humans are therefore has nothing to do with human defined racial designations.

I didnt say it had anything to do with racial designations. What I said was that its obvious white people deigned to define white as the presence of all colors instead of the absence of all colors due to racial reasoning. You should take art yourself since you dont seem to understand what you are talking about.

Racial designations, you just used one, "white people"................ You missed a couple of posts by the way....... Took years of art, pretty damn good at it too.........

What I said was that its obvious white people deigned to define white as the presence of all colors instead of the absence of all colors due to racial reasoning

Noooo, that not one bit racist.........

Self delusional much........

You've confused yourself or you are trying to deflect again. There is nothing racist about pointing out white people using racism to influence definitions. They've done it millions of times before. Are you claiming this is not the case?

 

[Ravi]

How about wiki?

This provides two superficially opposite but actually complementary descriptions of black. Black is the lack of all colors of light, or an exhaustive combination of multiple colors of pigment.