Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OK, last question in this sequence

Comments Filter:
  • Or do you just continue to ask questions in the face of substantial answers, ignoring them, in the hope that reality somehow changes?

    Race information is contained in DNA.
    Making decisions based upon that information is racism. Occasionally sexism, too.


    Have you shred #1 of a counter-argument, or do I get more nyah-nyah-I-don't-hear-you?
    • Race is information contained in culture.

      You mistake "Race" for "Phenotype" - a hangover of 19th century ignorance.

      • Now that is at least something of a coherent reply.
        So, if you want to argue the information contained in the DNA sequence has important interactions at a cultural level, I can accept that.
        However, my counter-argument is that
        education concerning the chemical implementation of concepts such as race and phenotype
        is the means to teach the absurdity of all bogus, non-meritocratic decisions undertaken in society.
        If your goal is to set up a bureaucracy to perpetuate injustice, then
        support Affirmative Action over
        • What would you do if your daughter married a black man. What if he were a black Buddhist or Baha'i, affiliated with no Christian church?

          Now, I suspect if you are honest, there might be a subtle bias in the supposed question of merit you seem to value.

          Or maybe, the disproportionate number of young black men in U.S. prisons are there because they merit the situation?

          American racism is so prevalent, that it's staunchest advocates CANNOT SEE IT, anymore than a fish can see water.

        • However, my counter-argument

          You didn't give a counter argument.

          You accepted my criticism of your definition. The response would be to offer a better definition.

          Where is it?

          • I've offered my definition (DNA-based decision making), and proffered a means to attack the current problem (education as to the silliness of racism).
            The race/phenotype rebuttal is at least interesting, and I'll even allow that my bumper-sticker formulation may be over-simplified, but I still contend it's substantially in the direction of where the argument should go.
            • You're not interested in any kind of discussion at all. I've offered my objection to your definition. Two objections in all.

              And you've not addressed either one of the objections.

              So you see, this is pointless. You don't have the brain required to have a discussion.

    • Your reading comprehension problem is showing again.

      Have you shred #1 of a counter-argument

      Already given. Besides the fact that what you mean is SKIN COLOR information is contained in DNA (not race), my question was why is racism so horrible compared to making decisions about other DNA based factors, such as height.

      Any definition of racism must account for why racism is so bad, but height-ism isn't a huge problem for us.

      • Any definition of racism must account for why racism is so bad, but height-ism isn't a huge problem for us.

        Height is used as a discriminator in the military.
        For reasons of cost, military jet cockpits limit the height of flight school applicants based upon a femur measurement. Too tall, no fly-fly.
        Whereas they eliminated me on myopia. And lack of a serious Type-A personality. Tom Cruise really befits the stereotype of the fighter pilot, in addition to being runty enough for the role.
        Now, you can still take a commission, but if you're a basketball player, you're going to we walking around like a folded jackn

        • That's not any kind of an answer. It's not a modification of your definition.

          • It is, in fact, a kind of an answer.
            The pattern of reflexively negating every single idea I put forth seems to indicate a lack of confidence on your part.
            Modification of the argument is an indication that I'm not so in love with my own ideas as to deem them perfect.
            Why the fear of debate, PMF?
  • Chosen People.

  • At least I get a shot at the last question.
     
    Racism (as a general definition) is negative actions towards or about another person based on the racist's perception of that person's heritage, both cultural and genetic.

    • Just reread the entry, and realized I was supposed to define a racist, which is slightly trickier, and much more subjective.
       
      A racist is someone who engages in racism even when confronted with the fallacy of their decision making process. That is, a racist is engaged ideologically in racism, and holds such racist doctrines dogmatically.

      • Replying to myself again. Guess it's obvious that I don't apply "Measure twice, cut once" to slashdot posts.

        My above definition is not meant to presuppose that racism never happens due to ignorance on the part of the racist. I suppose my definition is motivated by the thought that a person willing to examine and change their racist thought patterns is at worst participating in racism due to laziness of thought, and at best due to such tunnel vision or restricted experience as to have not had a chanc

        • You are far from being the worst reader in this journal, so don't worry about missing the racist/racism distinction.

          Worst reader would be smitty.

          Anyway, my response to you would be that an individual who fits your definition might be a racist, but would more probably just be prejudiced or ignorant.

          And I pointed out before, discrimination based on skin color is morally equivalent to discrimination based on height.

          But, we don't really give a shit if a tall woman won't marry a short man because of his height.

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Working...