Linking this act to an ethnic origin or a wild environment indicates shallowness in thinking, and it is a rejected view. Anger is a universal human emotion experienced by all people, not limited to one group over another, and it has nothing to do with whether a person lived in a forest or a city. As for the behavior resulting from anger, such as when a person strikes another with something, it does not reflect a specific environment, but rather is connected to multiple factors, including upbringing, culture, law, and even mental health. Violence is not exclusive to those who were raised in the wilderness, just as refraining from harm is not exclusive to those who lived in cities.

Therefore, linking this act to a person’s origin or place of upbringing is a false generalization that reflects prejudice, not understanding.

So, can you truly prove the validity of your ideas?”

The word Negro does not refer to a specific race.. Every person who acts like a Negro is like them and does not necessarily have to be of their lineage.. They are just a measure here.

You say that the word “Zinji” does not refer to a race, but rather to a certain behavior, as if it is a description applied to those who behave in a certain way regardless of their origin. However, at the same time, you say: “Anyone who behaves like a Zinji is like them, even if they are not of their lineage.”

This is a clear contradiction.

If you believe that the word does not refer to a race, then how can you speak of “their lineage”?
Your words here imply the existence of an original group against which others are measured, which contradicts your first statement that “Zinji” is merely a behavioral standard.

Thus, you are committing the Self-Contradiction Fallacy.

>...will spend the rest of his fagg like in a shithole prison
you dont even know where to insert the word "fagg" anymore