>>23Culture changes; there is no permanent culture. If this causes you so much upset, why not detach yourself from culture? Do not cling to it, as it clearly only brings you sadness and anger.
This distinction between "whites" and "non-whites" is mostly arbitrary; you display the classic confusion prevalent amongst people who cling to identities - the distinction between the individual and one's physical characteristics. While both, to an extent, influence each other, the influence is psychological rather than physical.
What I'm saying is that there is nothing inherent in "non-whites" that makes them any worse than you, and that it is a generalisation (and thus falsity) to categorise the ideas, intentions, thoughts and feelings of these "non-whites" as being solely caused by virtue of not being white.
You display the classic, foolish, primitive, tribal "us and them" distinction that is based upon nothing more than assumptions (which I have shown to be not necessarily true at best and fallacious at worst) of intention arising from physical traits.
>>18Let's say that it really is genocide, just to please you. In this case, there is clearly one form of genocide that isn't as bad as the others - one that I would so far as say that I am indifferent to; that is, the "genocide" that is caused "race"-mixing.
This whole terminology dispute reminds me of when there were anti-abortion campaigners calling abortion "murder", while the other camp were saying it's not murder (for probably very good reasons). I was left saying that even if it is murder, this does nothing but label an act, and to consider all acts labelled as "murder", this may be considered a good act. So there can be good murder and bad murder.
That's assuming you can prove the existence of morality at all, or if you're willing to admit it's just faith.