|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 03, 2009 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Racism is whenever you think a human being is by any means inferior because of their race.
Semantics - The main purpose for internet forums. The study of discussing the meaning/interpretation of words within a certain context; usually in order to win some form of argument. - Urban Dictionary
Let's NOT do this.
Let's not forget the comparative: Racism is as well, whenever you think a human being is SUPERIOR because of their race.
I wonder what racism has to do with this thread?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:43, 04 Dec 2009.
|
@doomforge
Quote:
Cor, what's wrong with considering other people as inferior? Well, isn't that obvious? 
I see no problem in acknowledging that some people are better at certain things than other people. I freely admit, for example, that, when it comes to running and jumping, I am inferior to pretty much everyone in the National Football League. I think you would agree that, in comparisons of two individuals at any task or activity, one person is always going to be superior to another person. There is nothing wrong with making such judgments, is there? I mean, we have all sorts of contests all the time.
Why is it then, that when it comes to comparing groups of people, everyone suddenly gets bent out of shape? Given the fact that races are nothing other than groups of geographically separated people, and geographically separated people evolved - to some degree - separately, with specific attributes ideally matched to survival in their respective environments, that certain groups of people are better equipped to do certain things than other groups of people?
Consider, if you will, the case of the molecule Hemoglobin S, an abnormal type of hemoglobin that is found in unusually high concentrations among sub-Saharan african populations. People who are homozygotes for Hemoglobin S have a condition known as sickle-cell anemia, but heterozygotes, who carry one copy of hemoglobin S and one copy of (normal) hemoglobin A, have normal blood cells and an enhanced resistance to malaria. Because this resistance confers an evolutionary advantage to people living in tropical climates, the abnormal gene was not lost in such climates and as a result, Africans, who are mostly black, have a very high prevalance of this gene. Not surprisingly, then, Africans have, on average, a much higher natural resistance to malaria than Caucasians, in whom the sickle-cell trait is much less prevalent. It might be said, then, that blacks are superior to whites at resisting malaria. Is it racist - and therefore morally wrong - to make this statement?
You can make similar statements about other races. Asians, for example, are inferior when it comes to digesting lactose. Racist?
So, really, I fail to see what is wrong - scientifically or morally - at acknowledging the inferiority or superiority of racial groups at certain things. The problem is, of course, when people make generalizations about the superiority or inferiority of racial groups based upon unproven or undocumented correlations between racial backgrounds and physical attributes. A white man saying, for instance, that black people are dumber than white people, by virtue only of the fact that he hates black people, is, agreed, wrong - morally AND scientifically. Most people who don't understand statistics also don't understand the principles of distribution widths - just because black people, for instance, have a higher average natural resistance to malaria than white people does not mean that every black person is superior to every white person when it comes to malaria resistance. And finally, regardless of the superiority and inferiority of racial groups at certain things, I think we can agree that all people are deserving of equal treatment under the law. Nevertheless, what I find annoying is the pressure in this day and age to treat every racial group as being identical to every other racial group - i.e., that any comparison of the attributes of specific human subpopulations, even honest scientific treatments, are treated as racist, and therefore anathema. That's frankly just as detrimental to the scientific endeavor as assumptions based on prejudice.
For example, it would be impossible for a legitimate scientist to study whether there is a natural variability in abstract reasoning skills (e.g., intelligence) among certain racial subpopulations. Because if said scientist found that race A was (on average) smarter than race B, he would immediately be demonized as a racist by daring to suggest that one race is superior to another race in some attribute. That goes well beyond the warranted scrutinization of his data.
Anyway, that's just some thoughts on the matter.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 09:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's not forget the comparative: Racism is as well, whenever you think a human being is SUPERIOR because of their race.
Yeah, if one human being is inferior, the other is superior.  Quote:
I wonder what racism has to do with this thread?
My thoughts exactly. Sometimes HC reads like a stream-of-consciousness novel.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 09:29 PM |
|
|
You wonder what racism has to do with a topic about outlawing minarets? These days, racism is a catch-all phrase for alleged discrimination against any ethnic, racial, or religious group.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 09:49 PM |
|
|
Vlaad, please. If we had only 2 races, you were right. But,umm... yeah. It's a difference whether you think that your own race is high above everything else or whether you think a certain race is below all others.
Corribus, you miss - or maybe the definition isn't clear, but that's hairsplitting - that when we talk about racism "we" mean a GENERAL superiority or inferiority. The worst racists didn't deny a PARTIAL superiority in certain areas, but still or even just because of that they deemed their own race superior still.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 10:11 PM |
|
|
A lot of basketball players are black.
OMG basketball is racist!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 10:16 PM |
|
|
As JJ said, I meant the general inferiority.
Like "he is an inferior being".
Not some particular feats or attributes.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 10:23 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:30, 03 Dec 2009.
|
Lol the newspaper here writes that the world laughs at Switzerland xD
I do too. I dont understand whats wrong with them or muslims overall. I live in an immigrant area. Lots of them are nice but as a shy swede and find it a bit scary to open the door and they want to sell bread or found our kitten that had ran away for some hour. So my mum does that while I hid in the stairs.
I do think that all churches should be turned into museums showing a forlorn age though and that they would charge atheists 1 euro to enter (to see it as a museum).
But I dont see why people even cares about muslims having a burka or not. People lack knowledge in Islam. My mum is reading the Koran to understand it better herself. I would never bother to read a long complicated book like that, I cant navigate in a bible or neither would I ever open one unless forced.
But I dont care. It doesnt hurt me in any way that muslims practise their religion like I practise WoW and show dedication to Blizzard.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 03, 2009 11:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
*Sigh*
A business is NEVER private. It's maybe privately owned, but every business is public.
I disagree, of course I actually am more of a socialist than a capitalist, so I don't encourage discrimination -- but the private businesses, in concept, must set their own rules (as long as it only affects them and not others around). If they want to refuse entry for any reason WHATSOEVER, they are free to do so. (unless it's the police or some other investigation obviously).
Keep in mind that I know this "pure capitalism" is not a very good model, I'm only describing the concept, not that I am in favor. (I'm not mvass).
However, minarets are not even businesses or commercial (making profits, selling products or services).
@angelito: sorry but you should be allowed to build anything you want on your private property. Unless of course, they were banned from being built in public areas, owned by the state, that changes things. (although still doesn't make it right)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 08:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I disagree, of course I actually am more of a socialist than a capitalist, so I don't encourage discrimination
Then why doesn't the post stop here? Quote:
but
Ah, there's a "but" and you needed a disclaimer.
Quote:
the private businesses, in concept, must set their own rules
Why is that? And why "in concept"? is this a Death lecture about theoretical capitalism? Quote:
(as long as it only affects them and not others around).
You mean, as long as the owner is the only one working, the business has no clients and its property is on the moon?
Quote:
If they want to refuse entry for any reason WHATSOEVER, they are free to do so.
Why?
Quote:
Keep in mind that I know this "pure capitalism" is not a very good model, I'm only describing the concept, not that I am in favor. (I'm not mvass).
Why do you do that? It's like Elodin explaining the theoretical concept of atheism. I don't think anyone needs that.
Quote:
However, minarets are not even businesses or commercial (making profits, selling products or services).
Which is the reason why theoretical or conceptual capitalism is of no relevance.
Quote:
@angelito: sorry but you should be allowed to build anything you want on your private property.
That is why again?
Quote:
Unless of course, they were banned from being built in public areas, owned by the state, that changes things. (although still doesn't make it right)
And that is why again.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 11:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@angelito: sorry but you should be allowed to build anything you want on your private property. Unless of course, they were banned from being built in public areas, owned by the state, that changes things. (although still doesn't make it right)
OK. I have a house right in front of the kindergarten. the little ones play outside in the yeard 3 hours a day.
Now I decide to built a hugh wall with a painting of an orgy between 15 men and 15 women on the left, and a picture out of the movie "SAW" on the right. height: aprox. 6 meters. The whole wall is lightened by many spots. of course the painting is on the side of the wall which points to the kindergarten 
How is that?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 12:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My thoughts exactly. Sometimes HC reads like a stream-of-consciousness novel.
The portret of the artist as a young man visiting the other side of the monitor.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then why doesn't the post stop here?
Because you want to restrict others in their private properties. I don't need to justify myself, you have to justify yourself why your idea is so supreme that it's you, or whoever you want, to decide and not them.
Quote:
Why is that? And why "in concept"? is this a Death lecture about theoretical capitalism?
I think it's about private property... a human right, you know. Unless you are in 100% communism, of course. Do I have to justify rights?
Usually it's a breach of rights that has to be justified -- and moreover, it's always a problem to do it, because most certainly the ones who have their rights breached do not have a say -- so justify why YOU have a say IN THEIR lives (and not yours).
Quote:
OK. I have a house right in front of the kindergarten. the little ones play outside in the yeard 3 hours a day.
Now I decide to built a hugh wall with a painting of an orgy between 15 men and 15 women on the left, and a picture out of the movie "SAW" on the right. height: aprox. 6 meters. The whole wall is lightened by many spots. of course the painting is on the side of the wall which points to the kindergarten
How is that?
Physically speaking, the light waves reflecting off your walls are out of your property
so if they banned minarets for sound, for instance, they should ban a whole lot of other loud things. To keep it fair, you know.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 05:49 PM |
|
|
@DF
Quote:
As JJ said, I meant the general inferiority.
Like "he is an inferior being".
Ok, nevermind. Carry on, then.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 06:42 PM |
|
|
Another post I wouldn't usually answer to because it's just... well- 
Quote:
Quote:
Then why doesn't the post stop here?
Because you want to restrict others in their private properties. I don't need to justify myself, you have to justify yourself why your idea is so supreme that it's you, or whoever you want, to decide and not them.
My idea? Buddy, it's not my idea, it's simply existing law in all countries of the Western world - and note that they accept private property. It's just YOU who has to explain why YOU think you are so much smarter than half the worls and know everything so much better.
Quote:
Quote:
Why is that? And why "in concept"? is this a Death lecture about theoretical capitalism?
I think it's about private property... a human right, you know. Unless you are in 100% communism, of course. Do I have to justify rights?
Death, the so-called capitalist world is disagreeing with you. So go ahead and explain why you are the only one who has an idea how capitalism should be and how it should have to look, if they would ask YOU - except that you don't want capitalism anyway.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My idea? Buddy, it's not my idea, it's simply existing law in all countries of the Western world - and note that they accept private property.
No they don't. When they tell you what you have to do inside, it's not YOURS anymore. I don't care how they CALL it, I care what is IS.
When they tell you who to let inside your property, you are in contradiction.
And frankly I am tired how high you hold the western society, when one of its principles what makes it that way is because people CRITICIZE it (unlike in islam countries where you get to jail for that).
This isn't the first thread you do that. The last thing I need is someone preaching the western society as if it were his religion that no one should criticize (and using the "it's how it is" as an argument -- PLEASE; that's like saying that christianity is "how it is" as a pro-argument towards it and have atheists argue with a negative).
Quote:
Death, the so-called capitalist world is disagreeing with you.
so-called is key word. Ask mvass.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 06:55 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 07:25 PM |
|
|
Death, this is like arguing with a child. How old are you anyway? It's not working that way that something is declared absolute, like private property, and then suddenly everything has to step back for PRIVATE PROPERTY.
What kind of world are you living in?
I mean it's ridiculous - you explain the world that it either accepts private property with all consequences OR ELSE. Because you think, things must be either 100% or 0%?
Who do you think you are anyway?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 07:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What kind of world are you living in?
He is not living in real world, but in Romania. Which is hell actually. A bunch of corrupted politicians which take all goods from people and can't be supervised.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 08:15 PM |
|
|
Death:
Well, it's inaccurate to say that if the government can do something with it, it's not private property. It still is, just not entirely private. I mean, there are still plenty of things you can do with it - buy more, sell it, modify it, open a restaurant, close a restaurant, pay people more, pay people less (assuming it's above minimum wage), serve different food (provided it fits safety standards), raise prices, lower prices, change your restaurant's name, etc.
JJ:
The existing law in the countries of the western world regulates private property rather excessively and restricts freedom.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
