News1 min ago
Is it impossible to be white and a criminal?
You'd have thought so by the indignation that some people feel when they are pulled out for a random search in airports.
http://
Look at the responses - 'the humilation I felt', 'the indignity of a pat down search, all to ensure security staff aren't seen as racist.
Should airport security focus their efforts exclusively on black and Muslim travellers? Should white travellers queue in a separate lane to everyone else? s
Perhaps a form of airport apartheid?
http://
Look at the responses - 'the humilation I felt', 'the indignity of a pat down search, all to ensure security staff aren't seen as racist.
Should airport security focus their efforts exclusively on black and Muslim travellers? Should white travellers queue in a separate lane to everyone else? s
Perhaps a form of airport apartheid?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@LazyGun sorry mate just paste it into URL and remove the spaces before you hit enter I put in and it will work I just tried it now i didnt want to post complete in case it embedded it sorry.
@Naomi No obligation Naomi but why is your first paragraph not ALSO directed at the OP? - "...to ensure security staff aren't racist... should airport security focus their efforts on black and Muslim travellers?"
As for this...
"we’ve agreed that Islam is not a race, and we’ve agreed that some people are mistaken for Muslims, but since Muslims come in all colours and all nationalities," .... we don't agree that it is not racist to be wary of a dark-skinned man because you fear militant Islam!
Im sorry if you felt i've been patronising but it seems as though you are trying to make the point that Islam is a religion, which is true. However, when people are dismissive or rude to a turban-headed man in this country when they wouldn't have been 15 years ago before 9/11 mania, in my opinion it is racial discrimination, ie. racism. In my opinion you do not need to know the race of a person to discriminate against him. Clearly you do not feel the same. That is fine but referring back to the top of this post, why was I targeted when others also used the word racist in reference to Islam?
Best wishes Naomi, I do enjoy a debate but this isn't one. When somebody is questioning a personal definition they are choosing to seize on a word you wrote rather than a point you made.
@..Everyone else...
I know a little OT but if you get a chance that vid i posted for Lazy Gun is a real eye-opener :0
@Naomi No obligation Naomi but why is your first paragraph not ALSO directed at the OP? - "...to ensure security staff aren't racist... should airport security focus their efforts on black and Muslim travellers?"
As for this...
"we’ve agreed that Islam is not a race, and we’ve agreed that some people are mistaken for Muslims, but since Muslims come in all colours and all nationalities," .... we don't agree that it is not racist to be wary of a dark-skinned man because you fear militant Islam!
Im sorry if you felt i've been patronising but it seems as though you are trying to make the point that Islam is a religion, which is true. However, when people are dismissive or rude to a turban-headed man in this country when they wouldn't have been 15 years ago before 9/11 mania, in my opinion it is racial discrimination, ie. racism. In my opinion you do not need to know the race of a person to discriminate against him. Clearly you do not feel the same. That is fine but referring back to the top of this post, why was I targeted when others also used the word racist in reference to Islam?
Best wishes Naomi, I do enjoy a debate but this isn't one. When somebody is questioning a personal definition they are choosing to seize on a word you wrote rather than a point you made.
@..Everyone else...
I know a little OT but if you get a chance that vid i posted for Lazy Gun is a real eye-opener :0
Barcelona29, I answered the OP’s question on the first page when I said //No, of course airport security shouldn't focus on black and Muslim travellers. Terrorists come in all flavours.//
//In my opinion you do not need to know the race of a person to discriminate against him.//
No, you don’t, but you need to know the race of a person to [i]‘racially’[i] discriminate against him.
//When somebody is questioning a personal definition they are choosing to seize on a word you wrote rather than a point you made.//
We’ve agreed on the point you made. People who aren’t Muslims are being mistaken for such – I haven’t disputed that. Perhaps you missed the link I posted before you joined the debate.
http://
As for being ‘targeted’, since your part in this discussion has certainly been no less energetic than mine, I’m at a loss to understand that, but not to worry. Best wishes to you too.
//In my opinion you do not need to know the race of a person to discriminate against him.//
No, you don’t, but you need to know the race of a person to [i]‘racially’[i] discriminate against him.
//When somebody is questioning a personal definition they are choosing to seize on a word you wrote rather than a point you made.//
We’ve agreed on the point you made. People who aren’t Muslims are being mistaken for such – I haven’t disputed that. Perhaps you missed the link I posted before you joined the debate.
http://
As for being ‘targeted’, since your part in this discussion has certainly been no less energetic than mine, I’m at a loss to understand that, but not to worry. Best wishes to you too.
@Naomi - i wasn't implying you didnt answer the question... I was asking why the term 'racist' was used in the exact same way as the OP and yet you did not bring it up except with me - ?
And you will note Naomi that my involvement in the discussion has only really been to explain to YOU your perception of a misuse of the term 'racist' - and like I'll just said, the OP was no different in this regard.
I'll only reassert my opinion that you do not need to know the race of a person to be racist towards them. Such logic may sound nice in definition but would in all likelihood rule out a great many members of the KKK as being racists.
If you discriminate against people of a certain 'look', and peoples who would natively look like that live in a certain region or specific set of countries, then you are discriminating against each race among that group. Knowing which race is which would not make that person any less racially discriminative.
I think the last paragraph made my position quite clear, and you'll explained yours well also.
But might I pose a hypothetical question... If, Naomi, I hated Bolivians with a passion and could not distinguish between a Bolivian and a Costa Rican so accidentally treated both groups as though they were Bolivians and discriminated against them both; then if I were not a 'racist' what would I be? Which word would you use to describe that specific kind of discrimination? A 'regionalist'? I'm curious as to which word you would suggest.
Lastly, a Pakistani is no more a race than a Maldivian, a Sikh, an Englishman or a Jew. It is a nationality. Different pakistanis come from different ethnic backgrounds of course, like any country. And so to truly be a racist under your definition one would need to discriminate against Indo-Europeans or Aryan-Hindoo, or to go back even farther... Caucasians, Mongoloids, Negroids & Australoids - the four distinct human races as per many anthropologists even today. Racial science changes all the time and I am yet to see any real specificity with what you think a race is - only what you think it isn't.
And you will note Naomi that my involvement in the discussion has only really been to explain to YOU your perception of a misuse of the term 'racist' - and like I'll just said, the OP was no different in this regard.
I'll only reassert my opinion that you do not need to know the race of a person to be racist towards them. Such logic may sound nice in definition but would in all likelihood rule out a great many members of the KKK as being racists.
If you discriminate against people of a certain 'look', and peoples who would natively look like that live in a certain region or specific set of countries, then you are discriminating against each race among that group. Knowing which race is which would not make that person any less racially discriminative.
I think the last paragraph made my position quite clear, and you'll explained yours well also.
But might I pose a hypothetical question... If, Naomi, I hated Bolivians with a passion and could not distinguish between a Bolivian and a Costa Rican so accidentally treated both groups as though they were Bolivians and discriminated against them both; then if I were not a 'racist' what would I be? Which word would you use to describe that specific kind of discrimination? A 'regionalist'? I'm curious as to which word you would suggest.
Lastly, a Pakistani is no more a race than a Maldivian, a Sikh, an Englishman or a Jew. It is a nationality. Different pakistanis come from different ethnic backgrounds of course, like any country. And so to truly be a racist under your definition one would need to discriminate against Indo-Europeans or Aryan-Hindoo, or to go back even farther... Caucasians, Mongoloids, Negroids & Australoids - the four distinct human races as per many anthropologists even today. Racial science changes all the time and I am yet to see any real specificity with what you think a race is - only what you think it isn't.
barcelonic29,// If, Naomi, I hated Bolivians with a passion and could not distinguish between a Bolivian and a Costa Rican so accidentally treated both groups as though they were Bolivians and discriminated against them both; then if I were not a 'racist' what would I be?//
By Jove! I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head! You are talking specifically about Bolivians, you have mistaken a Costa Rican for a Bolivian, and since you don't like Bolivians, you are therefore most definitely racist. In view of that, your subsequent argument relating to race rather than nationality doesn’t stand – but that aside, I repeat, Islam is not a race – it’s not even a nationality - it is a religion.
Let’s look at it another way. You claim people who are suspicious of Muslims are racist, so tell me which race – or, if you like, which nationality, they are suspicious of. In pursuing your argument, whilst you may be defending some – and I understand completely why you’re doing that - your failure to comprehend why some people regard Muslims with suspicion results not only in you exposing your own inability to appreciate the concerns of others, but in condemning them inaccurately as ‘racist’, and hence insulting their intellect.
By Jove! I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head! You are talking specifically about Bolivians, you have mistaken a Costa Rican for a Bolivian, and since you don't like Bolivians, you are therefore most definitely racist. In view of that, your subsequent argument relating to race rather than nationality doesn’t stand – but that aside, I repeat, Islam is not a race – it’s not even a nationality - it is a religion.
Let’s look at it another way. You claim people who are suspicious of Muslims are racist, so tell me which race – or, if you like, which nationality, they are suspicious of. In pursuing your argument, whilst you may be defending some – and I understand completely why you’re doing that - your failure to comprehend why some people regard Muslims with suspicion results not only in you exposing your own inability to appreciate the concerns of others, but in condemning them inaccurately as ‘racist’, and hence insulting their intellect.
@Naomi - Bolivians are NOT a race. In fact the country is almost geographically divided into Hispanic peoples and the natives. Also Naomi, reading what you just posted suggests you failed to see the hypothetical i created! Did you mistakenyl read that I was saying that I myself actually hate Bolivians?!? Because that is what you seem to be saying.
In view of that Naomi, care to explain why my subsequent argument relating to race and nationality doesn't stand? You offer nothing on that most important point and chose to dismiss it entirely.
i think the following perfectly encapsulates you're repeated failure to understand my posts: I DO NOT THINK that being suspicious is necessarily racist; it is only if you know they are in fact a Muslim.
If you know that somebody is a Muslim and you are "wary" towards them it is not racist - but if you are suspicious of Islam and through ignorance allow that discrimination to affect non-Muslims too (which is nearly always done because of skin colour), then I believe it to be racist. I also believe i've already made this point clear (to all but you it would seem).
How many KKK members would you guess to have absolutely no chance of distinguishing between a Saudi Muslim and an Isreali Jew?
My guess would be most. So as per your definition those people would be spared the label of racist because they do not know which specific race they are persecuting! What if they hated all races but their own, and didn't know what the other races were only skin colours? That then, would mean they are definitely not racist; is this what you are suggesting?
In view of that Naomi, care to explain why my subsequent argument relating to race and nationality doesn't stand? You offer nothing on that most important point and chose to dismiss it entirely.
i think the following perfectly encapsulates you're repeated failure to understand my posts: I DO NOT THINK that being suspicious is necessarily racist; it is only if you know they are in fact a Muslim.
If you know that somebody is a Muslim and you are "wary" towards them it is not racist - but if you are suspicious of Islam and through ignorance allow that discrimination to affect non-Muslims too (which is nearly always done because of skin colour), then I believe it to be racist. I also believe i've already made this point clear (to all but you it would seem).
How many KKK members would you guess to have absolutely no chance of distinguishing between a Saudi Muslim and an Isreali Jew?
My guess would be most. So as per your definition those people would be spared the label of racist because they do not know which specific race they are persecuting! What if they hated all races but their own, and didn't know what the other races were only skin colours? That then, would mean they are definitely not racist; is this what you are suggesting?
Barcelonic29, I didn’t fail to see the hypothetical situation you created, I simply elaborated upon it.
//I DO NOT THINK that being suspicious is necessarily racist; it is only if you know they are in fact a Muslim.//
For the last time, Islam is not a race, it is not a nationality, it is not a colour – it is a belief system – and those who are concerned by the threat of Islamic terrorism are worried by a specific belief system which is adhered to by people of all races, nationalities, and colours. Therefore they are not racist – they are simply afraid of what that belief system may lead to.
An example. This woman is Muslim and I know she’s Muslim..
http://
She’s also white and British. In her case, people know where her sympathies lie, and they know she could pose a danger to them – but they don’t know where the sympathies of those Muslims they’re rubbing shoulders with daily lie – and therefore, since they don’t want to be blown to smithereens, whatever colour, or race, or nationality Muslims are, non-Muslims of all colours, races, and nationalities are understandably wary.
I suspect you’re being deliberately difficult in your argument and it’s becoming rather tedious, so I’ve said all I’ve got to say on this subject. Perhaps someone else will continue with you.
//I DO NOT THINK that being suspicious is necessarily racist; it is only if you know they are in fact a Muslim.//
For the last time, Islam is not a race, it is not a nationality, it is not a colour – it is a belief system – and those who are concerned by the threat of Islamic terrorism are worried by a specific belief system which is adhered to by people of all races, nationalities, and colours. Therefore they are not racist – they are simply afraid of what that belief system may lead to.
An example. This woman is Muslim and I know she’s Muslim..
http://
She’s also white and British. In her case, people know where her sympathies lie, and they know she could pose a danger to them – but they don’t know where the sympathies of those Muslims they’re rubbing shoulders with daily lie – and therefore, since they don’t want to be blown to smithereens, whatever colour, or race, or nationality Muslims are, non-Muslims of all colours, races, and nationalities are understandably wary.
I suspect you’re being deliberately difficult in your argument and it’s becoming rather tedious, so I’ve said all I’ve got to say on this subject. Perhaps someone else will continue with you.
@Naomi I know you don't care but this is how I see it: we've disagreed on one thing - whether to be wary of people we believe could be potential terrorists. All the rest has been squabbling over the way you and I define racism.
As per the United Nations we are both wrong in our definitions...
"1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin... "
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm --- Act I - Part 1
Look up racism on wikipedia and read the second paragraph if you want an idea of how much time you've wasted tormenting me on this matter.
Not once did I imply that you are a racist (and Naomi im not saying that you said I did - before you go frewaking out like the last time) and I don't believe you are but I do believe that it is irrational to fear terrorism in the UK or America. I have already posted stats to show you why I believe this fear to be absurd - I apologise if you've lost somebody to terrorism or something but I've never met anybody who has and if I thought the Sun was going to kill me they'd lock me up as nuts, despite it being the more likely demise.
Naomi : "I suspect you’re being deliberately difficult in your argument and it’s becoming rather tedious, so I’ve said all I’ve got to say on this subject."
How rude can a person be?!? I've spent both time and effort to specifically address your questions and after having to repeat my question twice (the hypothetical regarding the KKK),
you choose to ignore it again! For what purpose I can only speculate.
It seems to me that Naomi has a very fixed view on racial science and believes that if somebody is discriminatory against a person of a certain creed or nationality, or of a person to which one doesn't know their background at all, they CANNOT POSSIBLY be a racist.
Kudos Naomi if this is an attempt to somehow provide self-justification (if that is the case, I make no claims) but your refusal to answer my question, coupled with the United Nations defintion of racism and those of many racial studies experts, can only lead me to conclude that indeed you are the one being difficult all along.
As per the United Nations we are both wrong in our definitions...
"1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin... "
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm --- Act I - Part 1
Look up racism on wikipedia and read the second paragraph if you want an idea of how much time you've wasted tormenting me on this matter.
Not once did I imply that you are a racist (and Naomi im not saying that you said I did - before you go frewaking out like the last time) and I don't believe you are but I do believe that it is irrational to fear terrorism in the UK or America. I have already posted stats to show you why I believe this fear to be absurd - I apologise if you've lost somebody to terrorism or something but I've never met anybody who has and if I thought the Sun was going to kill me they'd lock me up as nuts, despite it being the more likely demise.
Naomi : "I suspect you’re being deliberately difficult in your argument and it’s becoming rather tedious, so I’ve said all I’ve got to say on this subject."
How rude can a person be?!? I've spent both time and effort to specifically address your questions and after having to repeat my question twice (the hypothetical regarding the KKK),
you choose to ignore it again! For what purpose I can only speculate.
It seems to me that Naomi has a very fixed view on racial science and believes that if somebody is discriminatory against a person of a certain creed or nationality, or of a person to which one doesn't know their background at all, they CANNOT POSSIBLY be a racist.
Kudos Naomi if this is an attempt to somehow provide self-justification (if that is the case, I make no claims) but your refusal to answer my question, coupled with the United Nations defintion of racism and those of many racial studies experts, can only lead me to conclude that indeed you are the one being difficult all along.
Barcelonic29, I have two more things to say to you.
//As per the United Nations …..
"1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin... "//
I see no mention of religion there.
//How rude can a person be?!?//
For the answer to that, read your own posts.
//As per the United Nations …..
"1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin... "//
I see no mention of religion there.
//How rude can a person be?!?//
For the answer to that, read your own posts.
Barcelonic29 -
You seem to be making quite a big deal about the word 'racist'. You refer us to the 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination', Part I: Article 1, which never mentions the word religion once.
You also say, “... Look up racism on wikipedia and read the second paragraph...”...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Okay, I've done that. No mention of the word 'religion' there either.
In an attempt to help you out, I also tried here...
http://
But nope. No mention of religion there.
The fact of the matter is, no amount of word-play can get around the fact that religion is not congruent to race. A person's race is not their choice – their religion is. At any time, a person can cease their religion if they so chose. A person cannot cease their race and transmogrify into a person of another race. A person can change their religion. The difference is absolutely fundamental to your argument.
Your pièce de résistance though is this to Naomi, “... you've wasted [your time] tormenting me on this matter...”. Tormenting? I was under the impression that participation in AB was voluntary. If at any point you feel tormented, you can simply stop participating the discussion that is upsetting you. Reading between the lines of your statement, I think what you really mean is that you feel that you've wasted your own time on a pointless exercise that has been ultimately self-defeating as you appear to have proven yourself wrong.
You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist. Your own links and arguments have proven your assertion to be spurious. Nice effort though.
You seem to be making quite a big deal about the word 'racist'. You refer us to the 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination', Part I: Article 1, which never mentions the word religion once.
You also say, “... Look up racism on wikipedia and read the second paragraph...”...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Okay, I've done that. No mention of the word 'religion' there either.
In an attempt to help you out, I also tried here...
http://
But nope. No mention of religion there.
The fact of the matter is, no amount of word-play can get around the fact that religion is not congruent to race. A person's race is not their choice – their religion is. At any time, a person can cease their religion if they so chose. A person cannot cease their race and transmogrify into a person of another race. A person can change their religion. The difference is absolutely fundamental to your argument.
Your pièce de résistance though is this to Naomi, “... you've wasted [your time] tormenting me on this matter...”. Tormenting? I was under the impression that participation in AB was voluntary. If at any point you feel tormented, you can simply stop participating the discussion that is upsetting you. Reading between the lines of your statement, I think what you really mean is that you feel that you've wasted your own time on a pointless exercise that has been ultimately self-defeating as you appear to have proven yourself wrong.
You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist. Your own links and arguments have proven your assertion to be spurious. Nice effort though.
Barcelonic29, //How many KKK members would you guess to have absolutely no chance of distinguishing between a Saudi Muslim and an Isreali Jew? My guess would be most. So as per your definition those people would be spared the label of racist because they do not know which specific race they are persecuting! What if they hated all races but their own, and didn't know what the other races were only skin colours? That then, would mean they are definitely not racist; is this what you are suggesting?//
// I've spent both time and effort to specifically address your questions and after having to repeat my question twice (the hypothetical regarding the KKK),you choose to ignore it again! For what purpose I can only speculate//
Actually, I resent your appalling implication and I resent your consistent rudeness. That said, I ignored your question because it was answered before you asked it, but such is your ire you don’t appear to have realised it.
Here you are, read it again.
//You are talking specifically about Bolivians, you have mistaken a Costa Rican for a Bolivian, and since you don't like Bolivians, you are therefore most definitely racist.//
Let me make it clearer to you by playing with the words. I’ll replace Bolivian with Israeli, and Costa Rican with Saudi, and see what happens.
//You are talking specifically about Israelis, you have mistaken a Saudi for an Israeli, and since you don't like Israelis, you are therefore most definitely racist.//
See the last three words?
// I've spent both time and effort to specifically address your questions and after having to repeat my question twice (the hypothetical regarding the KKK),you choose to ignore it again! For what purpose I can only speculate//
Actually, I resent your appalling implication and I resent your consistent rudeness. That said, I ignored your question because it was answered before you asked it, but such is your ire you don’t appear to have realised it.
Here you are, read it again.
//You are talking specifically about Bolivians, you have mistaken a Costa Rican for a Bolivian, and since you don't like Bolivians, you are therefore most definitely racist.//
Let me make it clearer to you by playing with the words. I’ll replace Bolivian with Israeli, and Costa Rican with Saudi, and see what happens.
//You are talking specifically about Israelis, you have mistaken a Saudi for an Israeli, and since you don't like Israelis, you are therefore most definitely racist.//
See the last three words?
@birdie - You've missed the point I was trying to make. For what you have just said about my posts is exactly what I was trying to describe to Naomi: there is no clear definition of race and the only thing anthhropologists agree on is that there's no agreed upon list of human races!
My point was to show that racial science factors in all kinds of different information including their nationality and much more while Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race. I DO NOT hold the same definitions as the ones quoted - they were supposed to illustrate the lack of a consensus of that issue; the fact you have followed Naomi on the fact that the United Nations does not list creed among their cultural criteria shows this illustration is lost on you.
The UN are a group of people. Anthropologists, too, are people and they do not agree on all things and so THERE QUITE DEFINITELY IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF RACE.
If you disagree with the above statement Birdie then we understand each other. Can you now please elaborate on your final insult toward me reagrding my "agenda" - I'm at a loss to understand what you think this may be precisely?!?
Birdie: "...as you appear to have proven yourself wrong."
Birdie, now I know you've not been reading every one of our posts thoroughly enough. Naomi & myself only disagreed on one hting - the rest was squabbling over how we defined a word - a debate to which there is no correct or wrong answer - I was trying to make this point to Naomi and now with you coming in and also falsely believing that the dictionary is God and there is no such thing as definitional interpretation in our world, I feel perhaps you've both been 'over-educated' and perhaps even consider your knowledge to be more academic.
Finally Birdie - Naomi & myself may not have seen eye to eye but were not deliberately insulting for most of our discussion. You've leapt in here with inaccuracy and hostility:
"You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist."
I am sure that you too would take offence to a poster putting words in your mouth Birdie. I never suggested this and the implication that I "tried my hardest" to do so is quite frankly a defamation of my character.
Given how I despise all religions myself, it would be hard for anyone reading this to think that was the case as I'd be labelling myself a racist, would I not?
[And because you are now about to suggest I am for my last sentence, allow me to explain before you make further false assumptions: a religion is not a living entity. My best friend is a Christian - I hate his religion but of course I do not hate him. Clear enough?]
Contrary to what is seemingly popular belief I was not the agitator here but my defintion of racism was questioned by Naomi even though nobody asked the same of the OP - all this time I've been failing miserably to point out to Naomi how debates about personal definition are one thing, but the only thing we disagreed on which has an actual answer is whether or not to discriminate (ie, be wary) in certain circumstances, or not to be wary at all.
My point was to show that racial science factors in all kinds of different information including their nationality and much more while Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race. I DO NOT hold the same definitions as the ones quoted - they were supposed to illustrate the lack of a consensus of that issue; the fact you have followed Naomi on the fact that the United Nations does not list creed among their cultural criteria shows this illustration is lost on you.
The UN are a group of people. Anthropologists, too, are people and they do not agree on all things and so THERE QUITE DEFINITELY IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF RACE.
If you disagree with the above statement Birdie then we understand each other. Can you now please elaborate on your final insult toward me reagrding my "agenda" - I'm at a loss to understand what you think this may be precisely?!?
Birdie: "...as you appear to have proven yourself wrong."
Birdie, now I know you've not been reading every one of our posts thoroughly enough. Naomi & myself only disagreed on one hting - the rest was squabbling over how we defined a word - a debate to which there is no correct or wrong answer - I was trying to make this point to Naomi and now with you coming in and also falsely believing that the dictionary is God and there is no such thing as definitional interpretation in our world, I feel perhaps you've both been 'over-educated' and perhaps even consider your knowledge to be more academic.
Finally Birdie - Naomi & myself may not have seen eye to eye but were not deliberately insulting for most of our discussion. You've leapt in here with inaccuracy and hostility:
"You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist."
I am sure that you too would take offence to a poster putting words in your mouth Birdie. I never suggested this and the implication that I "tried my hardest" to do so is quite frankly a defamation of my character.
Given how I despise all religions myself, it would be hard for anyone reading this to think that was the case as I'd be labelling myself a racist, would I not?
[And because you are now about to suggest I am for my last sentence, allow me to explain before you make further false assumptions: a religion is not a living entity. My best friend is a Christian - I hate his religion but of course I do not hate him. Clear enough?]
Contrary to what is seemingly popular belief I was not the agitator here but my defintion of racism was questioned by Naomi even though nobody asked the same of the OP - all this time I've been failing miserably to point out to Naomi how debates about personal definition are one thing, but the only thing we disagreed on which has an actual answer is whether or not to discriminate (ie, be wary) in certain circumstances, or not to be wary at all.
@Naomi-
There's really no need to patronise - the fact is that that sentence wasn't particularly easy to understand because one doesn't know if you're referencing me or 'somebody'. Perhaps the words you changed around for me were the wrong ones to swap.
Also, is it that you have changed your mind Naomi? The last three words were "most definitely racist".
?!?
I agree with the whole sentence and have been throughout - it is you who has been disagreeing with that! I say again that if you are discriminating against a Syrian because you dislike Jordanian people and think this person may be Jordanian because you don't know either way, you are being racially discriminative.
You disagree (because you believe knowledge of the person's nationality is absolutely required)
And the UN disagrees with both of us (on the grounds that discriminating against a nationality is just as racist as discriminating against another group within their own defintions); do you see my point?
There is NOT a clear definition of race anywhere to be found in the world. The very fact this a hotly-debated topic is proof of this.
There's really no need to patronise - the fact is that that sentence wasn't particularly easy to understand because one doesn't know if you're referencing me or 'somebody'. Perhaps the words you changed around for me were the wrong ones to swap.
Also, is it that you have changed your mind Naomi? The last three words were "most definitely racist".
?!?
I agree with the whole sentence and have been throughout - it is you who has been disagreeing with that! I say again that if you are discriminating against a Syrian because you dislike Jordanian people and think this person may be Jordanian because you don't know either way, you are being racially discriminative.
You disagree (because you believe knowledge of the person's nationality is absolutely required)
And the UN disagrees with both of us (on the grounds that discriminating against a nationality is just as racist as discriminating against another group within their own defintions); do you see my point?
There is NOT a clear definition of race anywhere to be found in the world. The very fact this a hotly-debated topic is proof of this.
Barcelonic29, //Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race.//
More insults! You’re making it up as you go along. Read my posts again – and in particular the one below relating to the KKK.
//You [hypothetically the KKK – just to make that clear] are talking specifically about Israelis, you [hypothetically the KKK] have mistaken a Saudi for an Israeli, and since you [hypothetically the KKK] don't like Israelis, you [hypothetically the KKK] are therefore most definitely racist.//
And now you say //I agree with the whole sentence and have been throughout//, when in the previous breath you were saying //Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race//
And then you again say //You [Naomi] disagree (because you [Naomi] believe knowledge of the person's nationality is absolutely required)//
This is becoming more and more confusing. Are you quite sure you know what you believe – or what I am saying – or indeed what you are saying? Again I say read my posts – and in particular the one above relating to the KKK.
From Birdie: //"You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist."//
You’re denying that, but that’s precisely what you are doing. It’s the crux of this whole argument.
Right! Let me put this as plainly as I can. A radical Muslim who intends to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, or to carry a bomb into a crowded area with the specific intention of killing himself in the name of Allah, and taking as many innocent people with him as possible, may be black, white, yellow, green, or purple with orange spots – and he may originate from any country on earth – and non-Muslims (and actually many ordinary Muslims) of all colours and nationalities and ethnic groups would be wary of him NOT because of his colour, NOT because of his ethnic origin, and NOT because of his nationality – but because he is a complete and utter madman driven by an evil and brutal philosophy emanating from the Dark Ages. Is that straight enough for you?
I’m not sure whether you genuinely don’t understand what’s been written here, or whether you are bent on creating conflict – or whether you’re just a wind-up merchant – but whatever your mind set or your purpose this is bizarre – truly bizarre. I think I can honestly say in all my years on AB I’ve never encountered anything quite like it.
More insults! You’re making it up as you go along. Read my posts again – and in particular the one below relating to the KKK.
//You [hypothetically the KKK – just to make that clear] are talking specifically about Israelis, you [hypothetically the KKK] have mistaken a Saudi for an Israeli, and since you [hypothetically the KKK] don't like Israelis, you [hypothetically the KKK] are therefore most definitely racist.//
And now you say //I agree with the whole sentence and have been throughout//, when in the previous breath you were saying //Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race//
And then you again say //You [Naomi] disagree (because you [Naomi] believe knowledge of the person's nationality is absolutely required)//
This is becoming more and more confusing. Are you quite sure you know what you believe – or what I am saying – or indeed what you are saying? Again I say read my posts – and in particular the one above relating to the KKK.
From Birdie: //"You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist."//
You’re denying that, but that’s precisely what you are doing. It’s the crux of this whole argument.
Right! Let me put this as plainly as I can. A radical Muslim who intends to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, or to carry a bomb into a crowded area with the specific intention of killing himself in the name of Allah, and taking as many innocent people with him as possible, may be black, white, yellow, green, or purple with orange spots – and he may originate from any country on earth – and non-Muslims (and actually many ordinary Muslims) of all colours and nationalities and ethnic groups would be wary of him NOT because of his colour, NOT because of his ethnic origin, and NOT because of his nationality – but because he is a complete and utter madman driven by an evil and brutal philosophy emanating from the Dark Ages. Is that straight enough for you?
I’m not sure whether you genuinely don’t understand what’s been written here, or whether you are bent on creating conflict – or whether you’re just a wind-up merchant – but whatever your mind set or your purpose this is bizarre – truly bizarre. I think I can honestly say in all my years on AB I’ve never encountered anything quite like it.
Barcelonic29 -
You write much but say very little that makes sense.
You accuse me of missing the point and of being hostile. I have done neither. I stated, “You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist” because that is precisely what you have done and continue to try and do. You seem to consider people who take an opposing view to yourself to be hostile. If so, that's a problem that you need to address yourself.
You also say, “...There is NOT a clear definition of race anywhere to be found in the world...”. If that is true, why are you so adamant that you understand the word and concept so completely? By accusing someone of racism it stands to reason that you think you can define it. You make the appalling statement, “Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race..”. It seems that not only have you misinterpreted Naomi's position, you have worded it in such a way as to be insulting, yet it is you accusing others of being hostile.
Let me make myself crystal clear. There may be some debate over the exact definition of the word 'race'. However, that doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily and falsely accuse someone of being racist based entirely on your own criteria.
To make it even more clear – race is not religion and religion is not race. A person's race cannot be changed by an act of will – religion can.
Before I finish for tonight, I must comment on your statement, “... I feel perhaps you've both been 'over-educated' and perhaps even consider your knowledge to be more academic...”
Get over yourself. I can only speak for myself when I say that just because I can spot a spurious argument (and that's putting it mildly) doesn't mean that I am 'over educated' or more 'academic' than anyone else.
You appear to have a rather large chip on your shoulder. You would do well to extirpate it.
You write much but say very little that makes sense.
You accuse me of missing the point and of being hostile. I have done neither. I stated, “You have tried your hardest to suggest that a person who dislikes a particular religion is racist” because that is precisely what you have done and continue to try and do. You seem to consider people who take an opposing view to yourself to be hostile. If so, that's a problem that you need to address yourself.
You also say, “...There is NOT a clear definition of race anywhere to be found in the world...”. If that is true, why are you so adamant that you understand the word and concept so completely? By accusing someone of racism it stands to reason that you think you can define it. You make the appalling statement, “Naomi believes you can freely discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin and only be considered racist if you know their race..”. It seems that not only have you misinterpreted Naomi's position, you have worded it in such a way as to be insulting, yet it is you accusing others of being hostile.
Let me make myself crystal clear. There may be some debate over the exact definition of the word 'race'. However, that doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily and falsely accuse someone of being racist based entirely on your own criteria.
To make it even more clear – race is not religion and religion is not race. A person's race cannot be changed by an act of will – religion can.
Before I finish for tonight, I must comment on your statement, “... I feel perhaps you've both been 'over-educated' and perhaps even consider your knowledge to be more academic...”
Get over yourself. I can only speak for myself when I say that just because I can spot a spurious argument (and that's putting it mildly) doesn't mean that I am 'over educated' or more 'academic' than anyone else.
You appear to have a rather large chip on your shoulder. You would do well to extirpate it.
Extraordinary indeed.
I think the "crux" of the "argument" Birdie is that there are different ways of approaching a debate, and Naomi brought it to a hostile level; at which point it was precisely the kind of debate which suits you.
I am not making any claims above, other than WHAT I THINK. So please refrain from your continued insistence on painting a portrayal of me who has opnely accused others of being racist, or from putting words in my mouth because you fail to identify the specificity of words I use.
The idea that i am deliberaetly making this "difficult" is preposterous - i've written more posts in this thread than the 4 or so years i've been with AB! I would only do such a thing to defend myself aagainst baseless accusations from bigoted people such as Naomi who believes we should all be wary of Muslims - which, naomi, may be racist or not but doesn't affect how ignorant and bigoted an attitude that is. You have openly admitted you are wary towards people you fear COULD be a Muslim and that in your opinion this is prudent. You've denied this is racist - do you also deny this is discrimination?
I know how the mentality works in a debate like this when a third party joins in. I would really like to discuss these issues further with you and other issues too. You're views are a refreshing contrast to those usually expressed in philosophy forums. I don't suppose either of you happen to be a member of any philosophy forums - that way I could present my argument in an arena where logic is rewarded and Serengeti-style britality toward someone (and intentionally putting words in people's mouths) is both acknowledged and frowned upon.
I'm registered with 10 - 20 such forums, but I'd be glad to register at your forums.
@Birdie & Naomi---
I'm sure you'll want to dismiss me at this point as you now have found one another, but I beg of you to at least allow me to defend myself properly. We all know this thread is ruined by needless squabbling.
If you decide to dismiss me here rather than allow me to counter your claims in a forum where I am not character-restricted, you'd be doing yourselves justice..
If, however, you instead offer me an invite to a discussion forum you frequent - I believe there is a lot to say about your views on race & ethnicity (of course now leaving aside the ridiculous dispute over definitional interpretation - for which at least Biride is wise enough to recognise) and would hate to be forced out of the discussion because of an impractical discussion forum.
Please be civil enough to consider NOT terminating this discusion on the grounds you've found one another. Please suspend whatever misplaced hatred you feel toward me and give me the chance to explain the fallacy of your logic in an arena where such discussion belongs.
Let me remind you Naomi that you too have spent a lot of time in this thread which means clearly this also matters to you enough to warrant its continuation.
I am a humanist philosopher not an online nutcase so personally I feel this discussion is important and merits our attention, but if you both collectively decide it is an unimportant conversation with an unimportant person, then that of course is your perogative.
If you wish to invite me, simply name the site & I'll set up a thread. No email exhanges necessary, Ill have the same username. Let me know because I don't believe that either of you are unintelligent, and so I value your views even if they contrast starkly to my own. There are some forums which cater to such discussions and are properly moderated to avoid undue hostilities. Invite me or allow me to invite you to one of the philosophy forums I'm reg'd with and we can continue what I believe is an important discussion about the ethics of post-911 anti-Muslim sentiment.
I think the "crux" of the "argument" Birdie is that there are different ways of approaching a debate, and Naomi brought it to a hostile level; at which point it was precisely the kind of debate which suits you.
I am not making any claims above, other than WHAT I THINK. So please refrain from your continued insistence on painting a portrayal of me who has opnely accused others of being racist, or from putting words in my mouth because you fail to identify the specificity of words I use.
The idea that i am deliberaetly making this "difficult" is preposterous - i've written more posts in this thread than the 4 or so years i've been with AB! I would only do such a thing to defend myself aagainst baseless accusations from bigoted people such as Naomi who believes we should all be wary of Muslims - which, naomi, may be racist or not but doesn't affect how ignorant and bigoted an attitude that is. You have openly admitted you are wary towards people you fear COULD be a Muslim and that in your opinion this is prudent. You've denied this is racist - do you also deny this is discrimination?
I know how the mentality works in a debate like this when a third party joins in. I would really like to discuss these issues further with you and other issues too. You're views are a refreshing contrast to those usually expressed in philosophy forums. I don't suppose either of you happen to be a member of any philosophy forums - that way I could present my argument in an arena where logic is rewarded and Serengeti-style britality toward someone (and intentionally putting words in people's mouths) is both acknowledged and frowned upon.
I'm registered with 10 - 20 such forums, but I'd be glad to register at your forums.
@Birdie & Naomi---
I'm sure you'll want to dismiss me at this point as you now have found one another, but I beg of you to at least allow me to defend myself properly. We all know this thread is ruined by needless squabbling.
If you decide to dismiss me here rather than allow me to counter your claims in a forum where I am not character-restricted, you'd be doing yourselves justice..
If, however, you instead offer me an invite to a discussion forum you frequent - I believe there is a lot to say about your views on race & ethnicity (of course now leaving aside the ridiculous dispute over definitional interpretation - for which at least Biride is wise enough to recognise) and would hate to be forced out of the discussion because of an impractical discussion forum.
Please be civil enough to consider NOT terminating this discusion on the grounds you've found one another. Please suspend whatever misplaced hatred you feel toward me and give me the chance to explain the fallacy of your logic in an arena where such discussion belongs.
Let me remind you Naomi that you too have spent a lot of time in this thread which means clearly this also matters to you enough to warrant its continuation.
I am a humanist philosopher not an online nutcase so personally I feel this discussion is important and merits our attention, but if you both collectively decide it is an unimportant conversation with an unimportant person, then that of course is your perogative.
If you wish to invite me, simply name the site & I'll set up a thread. No email exhanges necessary, Ill have the same username. Let me know because I don't believe that either of you are unintelligent, and so I value your views even if they contrast starkly to my own. There are some forums which cater to such discussions and are properly moderated to avoid undue hostilities. Invite me or allow me to invite you to one of the philosophy forums I'm reg'd with and we can continue what I believe is an important discussion about the ethics of post-911 anti-Muslim sentiment.
Latest Posts
History20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles54 mins ago
ChatterBank60 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.