What is racism?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
DasFX said:
*sigh*
What statistical *proof* do you have that a Caucasian population would be better off with a Christian majority? To insinuate that to be true effectively denigrates people of other colours and religion, thus it is racist.
I never used the word "would", that would be pure speculation. The statement was looking at a current state of affairs and all one needs to do is look at a map and GDP values to see that the statement is a fact for today's world.
Yet how can the economy of a country or region be attributed to what religion is practiced...
DasFX said:
Yes
Why? Clearly the person has qualified the statement by stating that he is basing his comment on the poor driver's he has seen and/or encountered and also, he also states that it is not an absolute statement by saying that "most". Does it matter who is saying this? What if an oriental person in China said the same statement, would that be racist?
Still, it's a generalization and points to a segment of the population as being inferior in some aspect, in this case their driving habits.
It isn't a generalization, that statement isn't for all orientals, it is the ones the person has observed. Are you telling me that it is wrong to tell someone they are a bad driver? So if I made a comment that said something positive about a group of people based on race, is that okay?
How is a person's ability to drive relevant to the colour of their skin?
DasFX said:
Yes
Again, if a statistic can prove such a thing, it should not be bad to say. If I have 10 murders and 7 of them involve Black perpetrators, then the statement is fine.
No, it is not fine...it is racist in that you are singling out, yet again, a segment of the population and casting them in a negative light. If it is part of some statistical analysis, then I would hope that it would be presented along with statistics from other groups so that a true comparison can be made.
Stats aren't only there to present things in a positive light, sometime they show negative things. If 7 out of 10 murders are comitted by blacks, I do not see what is wrong with it? I mean there is no need to specify the who committed the other 3 murders cause the point of the statement was about the majority.
Again, how is a person's capacity to commit murder in any way determined by their skin colour?
DasFX said:
Yes
I'm not surprised, but that is only your definition of a racist. For me, stating true fact based on proper statistics is not racism
As I said, if you want to state facts, then state them, but to be fair, your facts should be presented in a manner that is not conducive to singling out any segment for denigration or condemnation.
That's what stats do, they present information to single out trends. The statistic doesn't denigrate anyone, it just tell the truth. Who would have thought that stating the truth would be wrong. Not everything in life can be put in a positive light.[/quote]
It's not the stats that I have issue with, it's the argument you are trying to make in presenting them...
Your statements are racist because they appear to attributing race and/or religious belief as the deciding factors, DasFX.
If 7 out of 10 murders are committed by young, black males in a given area, that does not mean that they are more prone to committing murders. It means they have been put in a situation where murders are more common.
By just stating the statistic you are implying that they are more to committing murders though.
If 7 out of 10 murders are committed by young, black males in a given area, that does not mean that they are more prone to committing murders. It means they have been put in a situation where murders are more common.
By just stating the statistic you are implying that they are more to committing murders though.
Re: RE: What is racism?
How you interpret data is up to you. I just presented the statement based on fact, you chose to make a generalization from that statement, I cannot help that. However, there is nothing wrong with saying that based on data and trend, that blacks commit more murders (according to the ficticious date I gave) in the given area that the data is for.
If I survey 100 males and 100 females in a town of 500 and asked if they have ever cheated, and 65% of the males said yes and only 20% of the females said yes, can I not say that it appears that males have a great propencity to cheat in said town? Is that sexist?
So if you take a city like Toronto, with 3 million people and you look at the murder data and find that of 90 murders, 60 was commited by Black folk, why can't I say that most of the murders in Toronto are comitted by Blacks?
Racist:
Most Blacks in Toronto commit murders.
Not Racist:
Most murders in Toronto are commited by Blacks.
Of course the statement above portrays Blacks in a negative light, but just because the statement is negative doesn't mean it is wrong.
I mean, it is also a known fact that the overwhelming majority of murders are commited by men. Ask anyone, everyone knows that, so if someone says this fact outloud does that mean they are sexist?
Derry McKinney said:
How you interpret data is up to you. I just presented the statement based on fact, you chose to make a generalization from that statement, I cannot help that. However, there is nothing wrong with saying that based on data and trend, that blacks commit more murders (according to the ficticious date I gave) in the given area that the data is for.
If I survey 100 males and 100 females in a town of 500 and asked if they have ever cheated, and 65% of the males said yes and only 20% of the females said yes, can I not say that it appears that males have a great propencity to cheat in said town? Is that sexist?
So if you take a city like Toronto, with 3 million people and you look at the murder data and find that of 90 murders, 60 was commited by Black folk, why can't I say that most of the murders in Toronto are comitted by Blacks?
Racist:
Most Blacks in Toronto commit murders.
Not Racist:
Most murders in Toronto are commited by Blacks.
Of course the statement above portrays Blacks in a negative light, but just because the statement is negative doesn't mean it is wrong.
I mean, it is also a known fact that the overwhelming majority of murders are commited by men. Ask anyone, everyone knows that, so if someone says this fact outloud does that mean they are sexist?
Vanni Fucci said:
It's not the stats that I have issue with, it's the argument you are trying to make in presenting them...
You see, that's where you are wrong, I make no argument, I just stated a fact.
[/quote]
Human races are no different than different breeds of dogs or any other mammals. To assume otherwise is ridiculous and illogical. One particular breed of dog may be superior over other dogs in certain ways, yet may be inferior in other areas. Humans are no different.
However, for one to believe that one human race is superior over all others in every way, or overall, is preposterous unless that race was genetically engineered, and even then, it would be debatable.
However, for one to disacknowledge the differences in common proportional area to area potential from one race to another is equally preposterous! Instances of such disacknowledgements, seem to be perfect examples of attempts at achieving peace through ignorance. However, on the contrary, peace may only be achieved through knowledge.
However, for one to believe that one human race is superior over all others in every way, or overall, is preposterous unless that race was genetically engineered, and even then, it would be debatable.
However, for one to disacknowledge the differences in common proportional area to area potential from one race to another is equally preposterous! Instances of such disacknowledgements, seem to be perfect examples of attempts at achieving peace through ignorance. However, on the contrary, peace may only be achieved through knowledge.
Re: RE: What is racism?
Hmmm.... how do you know that 45% of the women aren't liars? 8O ( or the remaining 35% of the men for that matter. 8O 8O :twisted: ) Or how about only 42.5% of the people can be completely honest about their affair, while talking with statisticians.
That is the problem with stats...If you look at it in such a narrow field ...even the simplest result can be interpretted in many ways. A simple stat cannot explain the variables that can contribute to its result.
DasFX said:
Hmmm.... how do you know that 45% of the women aren't liars? 8O ( or the remaining 35% of the men for that matter. 8O 8O :twisted: ) Or how about only 42.5% of the people can be completely honest about their affair, while talking with statisticians.
That is the problem with stats...If you look at it in such a narrow field ...even the simplest result can be interpretted in many ways. A simple stat cannot explain the variables that can contribute to its result.
Re: RE: What is racism?
The points you raised are correct when talking about survey and voluntary responses. But I don't think the points hold when using verifiable data based on fact.
zenfisher said:
The points you raised are correct when talking about survey and voluntary responses. But I don't think the points hold when using verifiable data based on fact.
Gordon J Torture said:
Exactly, everyone looks at this in a negative way. They ideally want to say that "we are all equal", even though this is not true.
People like to discount science all the time. For instance saying that generally Blacks are better runners than South East Asians is no different than saying that a Greyhound is a better runner than a Poodle. If someone can tell me otherwise, I want to know.
I don't believe there's any superiority amongst the different races of people, there may be differences though attributed to race, such as the Black vs. East asian foot races. I wish I could stay out in the sun as long as my darker friends... 
I turn red and hurt, they just get darker and are fine.
There's also the water gypsies of Indonesia too. This small group of people are able to see as clearly underwater as well as you and I wearing a mask. Why? Apparently their eyeball is able to alter its shape a bit to ajust to different wavelengths. It's pretty cool.
I turn red and hurt, they just get darker and are fine. There's also the water gypsies of Indonesia too. This small group of people are able to see as clearly underwater as well as you and I wearing a mask. Why? Apparently their eyeball is able to alter its shape a bit to ajust to different wavelengths. It's pretty cool.
DasFX said:
Equality in this instance has nothing to do with characteristics of different races or groups. That is not what is being debated here, and I know of no one that would say that all people of all races and groups share equal characteristics...
What is at issue here is how one group interacts with another...whether a person acts respectfully, or regards another race or group as an equal...if one cannot or will not do that, then one is racist...
So in essence, equality and racism have less to do with the person of other race and characteristic, than does your own reaction to them...that determines equality and racism...
...and pre-conceived prejudices can be changed, so don't let that stop you from striving to be a good person...
As true as that may be, people tend to feel very awkward about discussing the differences in area specific potential between races. So much so, it is often frowned upon for even bringing it up. It creates anxiety, and that anxiety returns every time a topic that even slightly deals with race comes up.
I think if we studied in great detial, which races have more potential for what, and then made that knowledge commonly available and unbiased, it would greatly diminish racism. Of course, the results of such testing should not in any way dictate one's place in society, which I am certain is something many people would be temped to exploit for financial gain. Only when the proletariat have total control and meritocracy is not synonymous with financial gain, can such controversial sciences be explored without risk.
Gordon J Torture said:
Yeah, because religious, racial and political persecution sounds like a gas... :roll:
Jo Canadian said:
The word superior in terms of a racial discussion is taboo, that is all. If there are differences that enhances certain abilities, than there is nothing wrong with using the word superior.
Vanni Fucci said:
I agree with your take on racism, but it is different than the one I was presenting. The poll question is not about one's reaction to any facts, but just about the facts itself.
If it can be found that a certain race, based on accurate stats, is disproportionally responsible for a negative aspect in society, I do not believe this should be used to put down the entire race. I just don't believe that simply stating the fact should be dubbed racists. The fact is a fact, what a person does with that fact can become racist.
DasFX said:
Claiming superiority over another race is arrogant, racist, and dehumanizing...those claiming superiority over another race have counter evolved, and should be swinging from the trees... :evil:
Re: RE: What is racism?
Yes, every race does have certain qualities where it is superior; nobody said one race possessed superiority in all facets.
I would only make a general statement based on stats over a large sample size. I.e., African descendant people doing well in athletics (Track and Field). I would use the data or results from various events to form a conclusion.
As for who decides what is superior, well that is all subjective. It is all perspective. Say one can say Blacks can run faster then South East Asians, well if you are judging based on speed and endurance, then one would say in terms of running Blacks have superiority.
However on the other hand if the South East Asians don't view running fast as a necessary or important skills, then this won't be seen as being inferior cause they could care less how fast they run.
Just like the dog example, sure a greyhound runs faster than a cocker spaniel, but if that aspect isn't important to you, then it really is a mute point.
Twila said:
Yes, every race does have certain qualities where it is superior; nobody said one race possessed superiority in all facets.
I would only make a general statement based on stats over a large sample size. I.e., African descendant people doing well in athletics (Track and Field). I would use the data or results from various events to form a conclusion.
As for who decides what is superior, well that is all subjective. It is all perspective. Say one can say Blacks can run faster then South East Asians, well if you are judging based on speed and endurance, then one would say in terms of running Blacks have superiority.
However on the other hand if the South East Asians don't view running fast as a necessary or important skills, then this won't be seen as being inferior cause they could care less how fast they run.
Just like the dog example, sure a greyhound runs faster than a cocker spaniel, but if that aspect isn't important to you, then it really is a mute point.
Vanni Fucci said:
Why and how? I mean, why can we say that a Bloodhound has superior smell over a Chihuahua? They're both dogs, should I view them as equals in terms of smell? Of course if I had both dogs, I would treat them the same and care for them the same, but I couldn’t deny the fact that one has a better sense of smell than the other.