Trump refuses to call out Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists

Nice post, with some good logic to it. It helped me to see that we are here simply dealing with another form of fanaticism, similar to that in the Spanish Inquisition.

A struggle against basic instincts to associate with the Known and avoid the Other is worthwhile,-- and there of course are many good reasons not to hurt the feelings of others by being openly racist, and to make oneself more comfortable in a multi- ethnic and multicultural society by eradicating racism in oneself, --but many cannot fully control their feelings completely...and we have learned through experience that suppression just leads to even more harmful results.

I imagine you would agree that it would not be courteous to be openly racist to a person of another race in daily life.

 

No problem.

When they learn that, and show they learned it by stopping being a racist, then the job is done.

There is no such thing as "superior" or "inferior". There is only morality, and non-morality (or "immorality", but that term has acquired confusing connotations, so I prefer not to use it). And I explained (unfortunately it's on the post you didn't read) how you can determine that on your own. But it wouldn't entitle you to become the "thought police" because that would be, as you would learn when you learn Ethics, would be immoral.

It's not because I'm anti-racist that I know that. I know it only because you are racist, as you yourself have acknowledged.

Can't speak for other leftists and liberals. I only feel "morally superior" to people who are "morally inferior" (caveat what I wrote before). Which is a very small minority of people. And has nothing to do with their political views. We all try to do what's best for this country, as outlined on the Preamble to COTUS and on other documents on which this nation was founded (such as the Declaration of Independence). We just don't agree on what "best" is. But we agree that racism is quite obviously not.

Ouch! That's not fair. I spew my worthless opinions in the direction of everybody.

I don't insult you. I insult your racism.

That's different. Ridiculing other people's beliefs is a legitimate part of debates since homo sapiens first walked the Earth. Ever read Plato's Dialogues? Man! Those ancient greeks really went at each other. Cut-throat!.

I do draw the line at ridiculing people's religious beliefs, though. Even though I don't have any. Other than that, ridiculing you is off the table. As it can get you in trouble with the mods. But your ideas are fair game!

Absolutely not! Ridiculing absurd ideas has been one of the engines responsible for human progress. Keeps you on your toes! Just a matter of not adopting ideas that can be ridiculed, I have learned. So I don't.

Uhmmm... Do you understand what a Political Forum is for? You might be in the wrong place. Maybe a Political Forum is not the place for you. Or maybe you're not yet at the point in your life where you can take criticism. I'm just sain'

"Thought"? They most certainly do. You can think whatever you want. And you can express it out loud too. But when you express something out loud, you need to be ready for the consequences...

I have no power to do that, other than the power to convince. And ridiculing ideas (though not people) is a legitimate tool in the "convincing" game.

I did respond. I don't know how I would feel. It would depend on why they say you can't eat meat. And what is their reasoning. Is it because of a disease? Is it because the animals are in peril of extinction? Is it because they want to impose some sort of "religious" belief? Is it because animals are too cute? What is their reasoning for saying that? I can't give you a blanket answer on this without knowing the details. Depends on the motive that they give. And if the motive is rational or not.

If you need a quick response: I would probably feel hungry. But I don't think that's what you're looking for.

I'm afraid that's pretty much the rule of thumb. With several caveats. But that would be the default.

 

So you think you are always right and that racists are always wrong and that they need to be educated. I have to disagree. I would almost go as far as saying that I believe YOU are the one that needs to be educated although I realize this would not have gotten us anywhere.

Why are you so absolutely convinced that you are right, anyway? Why do you think you have the moral high ground to re-educate racists?

I have to disagree. Mother Teresa was morally superior to Ted Bundy. The winner of a beauty pageant is aesthetically superior to Rosie O'Donald. Einstein was intellectually superior to someone like me. I think you get the idea. It is true that these judgments are all subjective in nature, however, it doesn't mean people don't tell superiority from inferiority.

Huh? I never said anything entitles me to be a thought police. I don't care what other people think, as long as they don't hurt anybody. I am just saying that for you to go around thinking you get to educate racists this essentially means you are being a thought police. Do you agree with this?

It's true that I am a racist and that I acknowledged it. However, how did you go from "WAN is a racist and she admits it" to "I know more than she does about Morals and Ethics"?

So the people who are "morally inferior" are people whose thoughts you disapprove of. Got it. You also feel very justified in your contempt for those who you subjectively and unilaterally deem morally inferior. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe racists do not consider themselves to be morally inferior to you? Or is this automatically to be written off because racists' thoughts don't count?

Why do you think you are morally superior to racists anyway? What criteria do you use?

Who is this "we"? Have you polled the majority of Americans to see whether they think racism is bad?

Haha, gotta admit, you totally defused my swipe at you. Quite adroitly, too. Bravo.

Well, unlike you, I don't insult people NOR their beliefs. I respect people's freedom of thought. I believe that people can think whatever thoughts they want and I would never feel that I hold the moral high ground to insult their ideas. You apparently think differently. You think that if the thoughts people have are not "correct", it's fair game to go after them.

You probably don't realize it but you are actually a very intolerant sort of person. You are also very subjective. You also appear to think you can unilaterally decide what thoughts are "proper" and what isn't.

Unlike you, I don't let a bunch of dead Greek men tell me how to conduct myself in debates. If you think that ridiculing people's beliefs is fair game, have at it. I personally would just politely and respectfully point out why I think a certain view/idea is bad and let people decide for themselves. You? You can get as ideologically aggressive as you want.

Another difference between you and I is that you don't leave people alone. You literally will not stop until everybody else agrees with you that racism is bad.

I am not sure if I am convinced that it's as innocent as you make it seem to be. Maybe you don't say, "you are a racist therefore you are evil", however you probably do make it clear that you think that it is bad for people to have racist thoughts. Again, this comes very close to applying social pressure to make people "fall in line".

Not claiming that I know what you truly do in debates, of course. Maybe you don't do this.

But if ridiculing people's ideas leads to forum flame-wars, maybe you want to re-think your strategy. Also, it is possible to bring progress to humanity WITHOUT ridiculing people's ideas and/or extremely heated debates. I would just patiently, calmly, and rationally explain to them why I think their ideas aren't good. But maybe that's just me.

I was not talking me personally or about this forum. I was talking about out in real life, what liberals and leftists (not saying you are one of them) do. They absolutely do not leave other people alone. They feel the need to tell other people what to think and how to feel. I am sure you have seen this. How do you feel about it?

Indeed you can respond to things that people say out loud, however you don't have to do this in an aggressive manner. You also shouldn't feel that you get to re-educate people and tell them what to think.

You are not just trying to "convince" people. You disparage their ideas or put nasty labels on them and generally just make people feel bad about themselves in an attempt to browbeat them into submission. You literally make people feel awful for thinking certain thoughts.

No offense but this is some heavy-handed stuff.

Funny how you put the word convincing in sneer quotes. You are probably aware on a sub-conscious level that ridiculing is not an integral component of convincing.

My point is that governments should have no power to impose their moral values on private people. They also should not have the power to force people to be good. Do you agree?

Huh? Not sure what you are trying to say. You think dead people and historical events can tell present-day citizens what to do?

 

As I was reading this I began to realize that this kind of constant badgering over "racism" by the Left can make some people so fed up that they arbitrarily come to the decision that they would rather be a racist just out of spite.

 

Indeed the Left are their own worst enemy. I am a minority myself (Asian, to be specific). And very naturally when I started out I considered myself a part of the left because they championed for me and my people. However I eventually turned against them. And I can say with confidence that the Left is very good at driving people away. Apparently they don't know that constantly calling people racist does not bring them into the fold. In fact, it alienates them.

 

It is the goal of progressive Marxists to cause division and discord; they profit from it.

 

Ok. Do you realize how you just make up strawman arguments by the dozen? You do know what that means, right? It means that your arguments cannot stand on their own using logic and reason. I have responded to all of them one by one so far. I'll just point them out now.

Every time you make up a strawman, you are undermining your position in the eyes of any rational person.

Strawman

Strawman

Easy: Because one of the main reasons people are racists is that they do not understand Moral and Ethics. In any case, Moral and Ethics is only part of the education gaps that need to be addresse. I already mentioned others.

Strawman

Please read the following attentively. I don't want to insult you. But you need to understand that I think that racism is one of the most despicable things a human being can be. I would cite other human behaviors or attitudes that would be comparable, but I won't do it because you would take it as an insult. So here is the explanation why I can objectively say that racism is immoral

The reason why human beings have morals in the first place, is because it's a survival instinct. Anything that is contrary to that survival instinct is what we consider immoral. We need to live in a society in order to survive. If we live isolated from one another, we don't reproduce, and the species dies. Morals are what allows us to live in a community. So the moral principle (which I had already explained to you, and you didn't comment on), the one that allows us to determine what actions are "good" and which are "bad" is "whatever strengthens the existence of the human community is good. Whatever opposes it is bad"

That's why, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "morally superior". People aren't moral. Actions are moral. How you act is what determines if you are acting according to morals. What you think in the privacy of your own mind is not moral or immoral, so long as you don't turn it into action.

From here you can understand that there is no such thing as "my morals" or "your morals". There are only "human morals". And they are a human instinct.

Racism means that you believe that some people are inferior or superior to others based on their skin color, or ethnic origin, or nationality, ... That is objectively false. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people lead a more ethical life than others. But that has nothing to do with race. The next step after you accept that skin color or ethnic origin determines superiority, is to disparage those who are considered of a "lesser breed". Suddenly some people have more rights than others. Exploitation of human beings and slavery are soon to follow. Maybe even ethnic cleansing and eugenics.

There is no possible objective point of view in all of Ethics where this is moral. Segregating the community does not strengthen it.

This is just a broad explanation of Ethics. A whole field within Philosophy that takes years of study to actually understand. But hopefully, this will help clarify things a bit for you.

I am very intolerant of intolerance. I am also very intolerant of things like slavery, torture, child abuse, mass murders ...and yes, racism.

I have participated in these forums since the 1980s (they were BBs back then). Some, like this one, have been political opinion, many were for scientific discussions (at a non-scientist level), and some have also been to group-work on a particular project. Even just friends and family. They all stress that attacking ideas is fine, but attacking people is not. This one has exactly the same rule. Flame-wars are started by personal attacks. Attacking other people's ideas and defending your own is the very reason why forums exists. And ridiculing ideas is known as "Reductio ad Absurdum". Reduction to absurdity. A completely acceptable argumentative strategy, so long as it's not used as a fallacy Because there is also the "Reduction ad Absurdum" fallacy, but they are different things.

Ridiculing ideas has worked very well so far for humanity. Why change?

Of course I've seen it. But I've seen it on every political position. It's curious that you only see it from liberals. You can see it on this forum constantly on the right too. I think that debating is a great way to test your position. I have changed my positions on many issues after debating them. If I hold a position that won't stand up to scrutiny during a debate, I know that it's time to change it. And I have changed many-a-position. But I do tend to keep the ones that survive. I know that many people are horrified of the thought of changing their ideas or opinions. To me it's second nature. I come from a very political family. I'm used to sitting at the dinner table and debating with my family and extended family since I can remember. And some debates have gotten pretty heated. But, in the end, we all come together. I don't remember anybody ever leaving the dinner table angry at anybody else because they disagreed. Ever...

But, in any case, I understand if you prefer not to attack ideas. However, attacking ideas is the nature of the debate. So you should expect others to attack yours. It's just how it works...

You bet! Because I didn't even know there was such thing as "sneer quotes". To me quotes are quotes. They can be used to either indicate that I am transcribing somebody else's writing textually. Or that I'm using a term in a figurative sense (as in this case)

Wait... in writing this I realize I do know what sneering quotes are. I just never use them that way. Not that I remember, at least.... I do use them often (again, as I do in the paragraph you are referring to) to indicate that I am talking figuratively. There is obviously no such thing as a "convincing game", so I use quotes. Which should translate into "figuratively speaking"

I obviously don't. Otherwise there would be no such thing as laws. Imposing moral values is probably the "only" real basic function of a government. All democratic Governments have a legislative power that defines ethical behavior (according to the objective moral principle). An executive power that ensures that the population complies with the ethical behavior, And a Judicial power that punishes transgressors of ethical behavior. It's one of the most important (if not the most important) function of the government. What we need to do is make sure that we elect into government those who will act in compliance with the objective moral principle that I described above. It's not a matter of preferences, or ideology, or personal ideas.... it's a matter of survival. Ultimately of survival of the human species.

Oh yeah. Very much so.

"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."
Can't remember who said that...

 

I don't think I've seen you actually type a paragraph, just sound bites you find on MSNBC... Sad.

 

Its funny that a bunch of riots occurred under the radicals of BLM the media never forced Obama to call them out, and he never did... Hmmm, I wonder why.... Maybe he was too busy bringing that Muslim kid to the white house that made a fake suitcase bomb and brought to school. Such a heartfelt moment for me guys.

 

You think my points are strawmans', I think they are not. Impasse. The fact remains that you failed to address my points, though.

How do you know that one of the reasons people are racists is that they don't understand Morals and Ethics? Have you conducted personal interviews with a statistically significant number of racists?

I was attempted to say that racism is a very good thing, except I won't because I know that opinions aren't arguments.

No it's OK. I won't be offended. What did you have in mind?

Not sure what you are saying. So if white people are isolated from black people and don't reproduce with each other, the species will die out?

However, if some white people have racist thoughts that they don't want black neighbors, and they turn these into action by moving away from black families, this action isn't immoral. They aren't hurting anyone.

Not sure what you are trying to say. It is very obvious that you and I share different morals. You think racism is bad, I think it's good. If there were only "human morals", we wouldn't be disagreeing with each other.

First of all, you don't get to define racism unilaterally. Secondly, this is not even how I feel. I don't think minorities are inferior. I just think that they are dark and ugly and I don't want to live with them.

You really need to get this idea that "racism means one thinks one's race is superior" out of your head. You don't even know what racists really think.

You realize this is slippery slope argument, right? With a little bit of hysteria thrown in. "What? Some people have racist thoughts? Stop them! They are going to commit genocides!!!"

Come on now.

First of all, this is only your personal opinion. Secondly, maybe the reason people want segregation is because of other, private reasons. You know, reasons that they don't have to explain to you about. Lastly, why should we let you decide what we can or cannot do? If some group of white people want to have an exclusive community, I don't think they need to convince you that it will "strengthen" their community. People don't need to ask for your approval before they can do something.

Except that racism is not tantamount to any of those things.

I am glad I got you to admit that you are intolerant though. It doesn't matter to me of what you are intolerant. The important thing is that you recognize your own intolerance.

It's like I said, you can choose to ridicule other people's beliefs or be as ideologically aggressive as you want. I don't care. I just know that I do neither of these things.

I never said we should change it or that you can't ridicule beliefs. I am just saying that I do not partake in such a thing.

I think this is nice too but it has nothing to do with what I said, which is that some people (again, not saying it's you) don't leave other people alone. They won't rest till they make sure other people all stop having racist thoughts. Do you agree with this?

Laws exist to compel people not to do bad things (like murder, rape, arson, battery...the list goes on). But neither the law nor the government should be able to force people to do good.

Example, the Good Samaritan law. I don't know how you feel about it personally but I am against it and so are some people.

1. Got a source to prove this?
2. What if I disagree with the values that the government is imposing on me? Are you going to say that I must always be wrong and the government is always right and I should always listen to the government?

Moral principles are by nature subjective. Even principles like "murder is wrong", "rape is wrong" are not shared universally. Some hardcore criminals certainly don't share these principles and neither do some countries.

You also need to prove that the species would not survive if we don't do it. Sounds like you are exaggerating.

So....someone said a quote and this gives dead people and historical events the power to tell people what to do?

If some dead person said slavery was OK, and I am sure there must have been at least one such person, that means you are going to obey this dead person and start owning slaves?

 

I am not going to get into your point by point debate with Golem but it is patently obvious that you need to learn some basic facts about America before proceeding.

FTR all immigrants need to learn and understand these concepts if they intend to become citizens. You can verify everything I am about to lay out for you with the Immigration services if you don't believe me.

Everyone is EQUAL under the Law of the Land hence the inanity of the racists "superior/inferior" allegation.

The Law of the Land makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based upon race.

A great many Americans gave up their lives to end racism in this nation. The concept that racism was wrong was not an arbitrary decision by the government. It was a Civil War that cost 600,000 lives.

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they like and even to express themselves about their beliefs when it comes to racism.

No one has the right to do harm of any nature to anyone else because of their race.

The Laws of this Land are NOT "imposed" on anyone. Instead they the social contract that everyone who lives here has agreed to abide by whether they do so knowingly or not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it.

You, as an immigrant, have an obligation to acquaint yourself with the Laws of the Land. That applies to all immigrants to all nations throughout the world so this is nothing special pertaining only to you.

The entire history of this nation is about We the People moving away from oppression and hatred and towards freedom and liberty. From the outset many have died to uphold these principles and individual rights. To this day there are still those who put their lives on the line on a daily basis for these rights.

The young woman who was murdered by the racist white supremacist in Charlottesville was one of those just gave her life to ensure that racism will never again raise it's ugly head in this nation. She also gave her life so that you would have the freedom to believe in racism.

At the very least you owe her the respect to LEARN why she gave her life to ensure that EVERYONE is EQUAL under the Law of the Land.

 

It makes no difference what you think. Logic has rules. BTW, I'm using "strawman" as sort of a catch-all logical fallacy. But your statements violate often more than one rule of logic.

No. They may be racist because they suffer a mental illness. My assertion is meant to propose a less extreme rationale. And one that is solvable.

I actually named them later in the message, in a less awkward context.

No. I'm saying that living in a community is indispensable for human survival. The only way I can think of in which a group of white people could decide to live with each other is if they built a spaceship and went to some place that would be completely isolated. However, these people would still be lacking in the areas of education that I mentioned. So it's unavoidable that they will find other ways to discriminate against each other in some way other than their skin color. Maybe hair color, or whether they have hair at all, or maybe sexual preferences, or the size of their feet... anything .... You don't solve anything. It's still immoral.

They would be moving constantly. You're trying to make up a fantasy world that does not and would not exist. Let's adhere to reality. Nobody just "wants" to live away from blacks. They want this for a reason. And that reason is their lacking in areas of education and Morals. Nobody can just be moving away every time a person of a skin color they dislike moves into the neighborhood. And nobody is going to build a spaceship either. So these "scenarios" are just a waste of time. I know that racists love them. But they're not real. Or even reasonable.

No. It's not "different". It's binary. You either have a Moral principle of you don't Starting with the objective Moral principle (which I explained there) we can disagree on how to apply it to different circumstances.

For example, does public nudity respond to the Moral principle? Somebody might argue "Yes. Because it provides a freedom that solidifies the existence of the community of human beings." Another might argue "No, because it encourages promiscuity disrupting the need of stable households to raise children, and therefore it weakens the existence of the community of human beings". These are different ethical approaches, but they both are looking at the preservation of the Moral principle.

Racism directly weakens the existence of the community of human beings.

So you believe that ugly people are inferior to you? I assume you're very pretty, but what would you do with yourself if you grew old and ugly?

Look "Racism" and any word in the English language (and any language) is defined by the way the speakers use it to communicate. I don't define racism (that was another strawman, BTW). The common use of the word defines it. And dictionaries compile the general usage of words. Like this one https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Can you show any dictionary that defines racism different than I do and would accommodate what you believe?

Soon as you get it out of the dictionaries, I will . Your racism is only one issue. And it's not my intention to insult, but you also seem live in a fantasy world. All these "scenarios" that you use are complete negations of reality. It's as if you refused to live in the real world. Again: no insult intended. Just stating my honest impressions.

No it's not. And I'm sure I don't have to quote examples in history to you. And even in the real world today.

Can you provide an example in history or anywhere in the world that shows something different?

Strawman

Yeah... that's funny. I don't know any reasonable person who wouldn't say that they are intolerant of intolerance. Or that we should be tolerant with child molesters or torturers or rapists... or racists.

I don't believe you realize that by tagging yourself as a racist, you are immediately giving people who follow a moral principle a license to be intolerant with you. You haven't noticed that? It's the normal human reaction.

I don't care about thoughts. Morality deals only with actions.

I have no idea why anybody would be against it. Nor what it has to do with this discussion.

Preamble to COTUS. Which I already quoted. Declaration of Independence.

Depends on what values you mean. If you mean a value like "don't discriminate on people based on race", you're outta luck. As I said before: we have fought and won wars to ensure this.

The government is not always right. But you should listen to it unless you want to go to jail. If you disagree, you convince enough people and change the law.

More importantly: It is very uncommon that a phrase that includes words like "always" or "never" is accurate or even rational. Most of the time it's just a lame attempt at a Strawman.

First of all, "murder is wrong" and "rape is wrong" are not moral principles. I have already explained, at least 3 times, what it is. Those are ethical values which should respond to the moral principle. . I can think of scenarios in which "killing" is not wrong (i.e., is not contrary to the basic moral principle) But "murder" and "rape" are very specific legal terms. So they are morally and ethically wrong by definition. Therefore, even though I understand what you are trying to say, the examples you use are totally inadequate. Participating in a "rape sexual fantasy" is fine if it's consensual. But it's not really "rape"

Criminals most certainly share the values. That's a great example. If they don't share the values they can't be put on trial. "Countries" don't have morals. Only people do.

When I say "...matter of survival", I'm talking about our survival instinct. And if we didn't live in communities, ultimately the human species might be in peril. Ever read Isaac Asimov (The Naked Sun)?

When I have had this debate in the past, I have said "we don't survive" as shorthand. A more accurate way of saying would be something like "it opposes the survival instincts of the Human Species" Which is just too long.

Not sure what you believe this has to do with telling people what to do. The phrase simply explains my position better than I could.

But knowledge is cumulative. It's our evolutionary advantage. We learn things in books that our ancestors found out through great pain and effort. So that each and every one of us doesn't have to go through the same pain and effort That's the way human progresses. If we expect every child to discover fire on their own, we would still be trying to discover fire.

See how it's easier to just say "Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."?

You seem to be an intelligent person who can understand this last phrase without my having to write the long explanation before it. So I didn't think it necessary.

 

Black Power - no problem, very nice fine!
Muslim Power - very, very good!
Indian Power - wonderful!

But only White Power is no-no and very bad?

Why?

Because lefts, NWO, neocons & Co want to destroy the White Race and to mingle it with turd ones.

No chance!

Whites are very proud about their race and heritage.

 

One does not have to believe that other races are lesser in order to want to protect their own closely related people. The desire for genetic survival is instinctive.

The Earth took a long time to develop different gene mixes on the various portions of the planet, and the differences help to assure that at least some, somewhere, will survive if there are massive disruptions in the environment.

Evolutionists like to point out that every species alive today is in one sense equal to every other in that they are all still here.

 

You would need to show what rule of logic and how? If you're intellectually honest, that is.

I'll skip over what is just repeating the same over and over. And also strawman arguments. A typical way to build a strawman is starting a phrase with "you seem to believe".. Also keep in mind that its not reasonable to respond to examples I give with "prove it".

I'm not trying to either censor you, or avoiding to respond. If you believe I deleted something that is central to your argument, pleas point it out and I'll address it. Otherwise, I'm trying to keep this from getting too long.

I didn't say you were saying it exists. I'm saying that it's a fantasy that it can exist. And you fail to define it, how you would achieve it, where, how it would survive.... Which is indication that you don't know what your talking about. But, in any case, it's self-contradictory. An all-white community in the U.S. is illegal. Also immoral, but definitely illegal. Pretty sure it is in any other democratic country in the world You might try building one in, for example, Somalia... good luck with that! Or you might take over some unclaimed island in the Pacific. If you do that, it would need to be self-sufficient because no country in the world would trade with you. And since not even whole countries that have tried being self-sufficient (like Camboida or China in the Mao era) managed to be self-sufficient, your chances are null.

Therefore, it's a fantasy.

Cutting a statement in the middle, before it's complete, is a strawman. The phrase "Nobody just "wants" to live away from blacks. They want this for a reason" is inseparable

Similar things have been tried before. Ever hear of the American Civil War? Didn't work. The rest was responded above.

According to a branch of Philosophy called Ethics as it relates to a branch of Biology dealing with Evolution and Survival of the fitest in the elements that, relate to relevant areas in Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology. And this is the reason why I'm explaining to you that racism can be overcome with Education. Particularly in all of the above areas of study. None of which I created, by the way. So the "You?" part is a strawman.

Bingo!

In the last message I sent you an online definition of what the word "racism" means. Apparently you weren't aware of it (because you said I made it up). This should become clear after you read the definition. And it should answer the questions that followed.

Humans might. The existence of humans is the basic reason morals exist. So if you don't care about this, you prove my point. Which is that your morals are not "inferior".... they're just not there.

Some people just don't want to drive under the speed limit. Some people just don't want to have to ask women for their permission when they want to have sex. Some people just don't want to have to work for their money.

If you see how all these phrases are related, you will be much closer to understanding why racism is immoral.

Why yes. You said exactly that. You said that you wanted to move away from them because they were ugly. And BTW, it's the only time you have opened up and answered the question I have been making again and again: i.e. "why don't you want to live in the same neighborhood as blacks"

So would it be fair to say that if somebody is white and ugly you wouldn't want them in your neighborhood either? If not, please explain the lack of consistency..

Read the definition of "racism" I sent. Or look up one on your own.

QUOTE]I am not pretty, but thanks for thinking that I am.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you probably are. I preferred to be around good looking people when I was good looking (and more shallow). Loooong time ago. Now I'm much less "demanding".

Well, you could make up a new definition for the word "racist". Something like "A good looking Asian girl who is harassed by blacks" or something like that. However, that's not how it works. The meaning of words is not a matter of "agreeing". Words are used co communicate. And if you make up your own definition, you just can't communicate. And, before you say it, it's not just my belief. It's how it works. If everybody made up their own definitions to every word, we wouldn't be able to communicate.

So would it be safe to say that the reason why you consider yourself a "racist" is that you define the word differently from the way a normal english-speaking individual would understand it?

It's what the forum is for. If it makes you feel better, it's also my "honest impression" that you are probably very pretty..

Not when they "start" having racist thoughts. When they are tolerated and are allowed to be acted upon. See South Africa during Apartheid. See Jim Crow era America. And for the ultimate consequences of treating racism with indifference, see Germany, 1930s and 40s.

...says the lady who declares herself a "racist" despite not knowing what the word means.

History teaches us differently. That's another area in which racists need to learn a bit more..

Too much work to counter so many strawman arguments. They don't make any points anyway, so I'll just pass on this one.

The world does not stop when a racist makes up their own arbitrary definitions. Just keeps going. It's your job to catch up.

Just thought you'd want to know...

I've said it about 3 times. They can go wherever they want. But they'll have to move again if a black person decides to move there also.

The values specified in the DOI and COTUS, yes.

Nope. No such "value" in COTUS or DOI. Plus, it would be against the basic universal moral principle.

It doesn't. The DOI begins with "We the People" for a reason. The government can't change any moral values whatsoever. And they can only change ethical norms if the change responds better to the moral principle.

You're getting all tied up in your own logical fallacies.

I'm afraid it's not working.

Keeping my opinions to myself would be unethical in a Political Forum.

No. They are ethical norms that respond to only single Moral Principle.

Oh no! How dare I use books as a source of knowledge!

You're so funny! Funny and pretty are two great attributes. Shame that you're also racist.

Because if they don't respond to the moral principle, they're immoral.

Ethical values are like a list of things that are good and bad. For example "Thou Shalt not Kill", "Do no harm", "No diving in the pool", "Speed limit 55 MPH", "Fasten your seat belt", "No Smoking"... Laws, rules, codes of ethics... any list where appropriate and inappropriate conducts are listed. The moral principles are the reason why a value is placed in the "Good" list or in the "Bad" list. Smoking public is in the "bad" list because it harms other people's health. "Fasten your seat belt" is good because it makes your landing safer. But these, in turn, answer to other moral principles. "Why is is making your landing safer good?" Because it makes air travel more dependable for other people.... "Why is making travel more dependable for other people good?" .... and on and on. Ultimately, all these questions, no matter which, respond to a single basic and universal Moral Principle. Which, as I already explained, leads to the most basic instincts for survival, and the gregarious instinct (the instinct that leads us to live in communities). Therefore, anything that strengthens the community of human beings is good, and everything that threatens it is bad. We don't kill because if we allowed killing, the community would soon disperse. We don't steal because if we allowed it, the individuals in the community would tend to isolate themselves. Etc.

Yes. That is exactly right.

No. I did. It's an elucubration attempting to find a way in which "rape" could be considered morally acceptable (because you said that it could be). But, as I also said, that would also fail. Therefore, I was unable to think of any way in which "rape" could be considered "good". And since you didn't provide one either, that means that your example was inadequate.

If somebody who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong commits murder or rape, they do not face a criminal trial. If you didn't know this fact, you have now learned it. Societies don't have moral values. Only people do.

Ah... you are taking the very first step in understanding the point. But still too far away from actually grasping it.

If you dictate who lives in a community based on skin color, there will be social unrest, racial cleansing, war ... People who are segregated don't just take their segregation lying down. And this debilitates the existence of the community of human beings. History proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't account for unreasonable doubts, though.

But, at least you are crawling in the right direction. You need to learn how to walk, before you can run.

You don't have to. Only if you expect to be taken seriously in a conversation. Otherwise, people will have to explain to you too many basic things that for educated people are second nature. I have tried to explain to you some of them. But I can't provide you with full education through a political forum. You'll need to learn most on your own. And yes. For the most part that has to be learned from "dead people"

Sorry.. I wish there were some other way. There isn't..

 

i now totally agree.

they are inferior. 100%

dont know what I would do if I was one.

probably seek therapy

 

The statement I made is inseparable. My phrase is inserparable. The part you quoted from me. By which I mean that if you cut it in half when you quote it, it doesn't express what I intended.

Again: you just didn't read!

Look... I'm done explaining to you things that any moderately educated person would know. And then having you not even read it and just respond "No it isn't"... "That's what you say".... "Says who?"... and no substance whatsoever... All because you don't read (as was proven here)

Bottom line: You are not a racist. You don't even know what the word "racist" means. You are shallow, but not a racist. Shallowness goes away when you mature. And it might develop into racism, if your process of maturity is not accompanied by general education. But the first thing you need is to understand what the word means.

I have provided an outline of which general education areas you would most benefit from: Ethics (above all), history, and anthropology (in the sense of cultural diversity). You can keep that in the back of your mind. Or you can ignore it. It's up to you. If you ignore it, you might develop some very odd form of racism (being racist against yourself). But mostly you'll just remain with those educational holes. I don't care what you chose. I already did my part by pointing it out.

 

you said that white people are superior to you.

 

Actually, Asians are believed to have a higher average IQ than most other racial groups.