Racism

[Cole]

As far as I know, Ms Universe's feelings have a minimal role in how she forms thoughts and comes to conclusions. It seems that things are different when it concerns you, my friend.

Now, this is simply a difference in preferences and provides each with their own strengths and weaknesses, which aren't the subject of this discussion. Let it be said, however, that the argument presented by Ms Universe is more congruent, simple and logical than yours. Yours is charged with fluff, contradictions and ambiguous points leading to a conclusion that I wasn't aware could be made from the data you presented.

I have, however, found the flaw in Ms Universe's argument. It lies in the definition of the word "fault". Her argument would imply that there is more to racism against blacks than their existence. The word fault implies that the blacks are inherently flawed and their existence can only bring about prejudice against them.

A better argument would be the following:

Racism against black people is a consequence of the existence of black people. If there were no black people, there would not be racism against black people.

Mine is totally accurate.
Racism against black people is the fault of idiotic white people (which means, not all white people being idiotic, but the idiotic people among the white people).
If there were no idiotic white people (see above), there would not be racism against black people.
And no racism between both even, because idiotic white people (with their stupid hate) made some black people (for what they suffered) hate white people (all of them, even the large % who don't share things with idiotic white people) for their hate towards them (during last centuries).

It has been proven by history, so I couldn't care less how much the rationality sees it, theory is not practice.
You do a rational (yours is ok) analysis of things, but it is the same for white people and any other kind of people. What I did, was to explain it by history/social reasons.
Because if you state what you say, it doesn't explain why and how it did raise, it's like saying if it didn't rain car wouldn't be wet. My position is like explaining what were the weather conditions to create raining clouds that did wet the car

[Cole]

If I were to say I hated all black people, would that make me an "idiotic white person"?

Depends what reason(s) you would bring. It's all about that.
And that's why I said they were idiotic, for reasons they hated them.

[agapooka]

That leaves the possibility for other "races" to be racist towards black people. Arabs used blacks as slaves long before the whites. Furthermore, it is possible for certain blacks to be racist towards all other blacks, because they see a distinction that they qualify as inferior.

Also, your use of "idiotic" is unneeded, as it is emotional fluff. Whether it is the case or not depends on the definition of "idiotic". If we can objectively define it AND recognise these attributes in all whites that are racist, openly or otherwise, and compare the data to non-racist whites, then we *may* have grounds to use it in a proper argument.

[Cole]

So if I had good reasons, then it would be ok to hate all black people?


More importantly, there are "legitimate" reasons to hate all black people?

I didn't say that...because there's no proper reason to hate black people, because they aren't a race, so it makes any reason to hate them inaccurate. Hehe, yes that's a damn circle

That leaves the possibility for other "races" to be racist towards black people. Arabs used blacks as slaves long before the whites. Furthermore, it is possible for certain blacks to be racist towards all other blacks, because they see a distinction that they qualify as inferior.

Also, your use of "idiotic" is unneeded, as it is emotional fluff. Whether it is the case or not depends on the definition of "idiotic". If we can objectively define it AND recognise these attributes in all whites that are racist, openly or otherwise, and compare the data to non-racist whites, then we *may* have grounds to use it in a proper argument.

I did mention arab people earlier
My use of idiotic is simple: it has been proven there's no races but one race, they keep claiming it's untrue and will never believe it. That's why I used idiotic. Nothing emotional
That's why other white poeple aren't, because they don't try to deny the truth. Someone saying earth is like a pizza (roman science long ago) and believeing it nowadays, and being learnt that it's wrong and still denying it can be qualified as idiotic.

[Juliette]

A better argument would be the following:

Racism against black people is a consequence of the existence of black people. If there were no black people, there would not be racism against black people.

Quite true, I stand corrected.

A similar reasoning would be that the primary cause of death is life, or the primary cause of divorce is marriage, since without life, there would be no death, and without marriages, there would be no divorces..
There's no emotion attached to any of those statements. At least, no emotion can be deduced from them, as it should be.


Anyone who brings words like "idiotic" to the table adds an unnecessary and irrelevant emotional edge to discussions, and does in fact destroy the logical integrity of the discussion. Some people are quite emotional.

[Cole]

A better argument would be the following:

Racism against black people is a consequence of the existence of black people. If there were no black people, there would not be racism against black people.

Quite true, I stand corrected.

A similar reasoning would be that the primary cause of death is life, or the primary cause of divorce is marriage, since without life, there would be no death, and without marriages, there would be no divorces..
There's no emotion attached to any of those statements. At least, no emotion can be deduced from them, as it should be.


Anyone who brings words like "idiotic" to the table adds an unnecessary and irrelevant emotional edge to discussions, and does in fact destroy the logical integrity of the discussion. Some people are quite emotional.

Yet, those statements explain not much. Because for example, why would couple A remain married while couple B divorced? Both married, one divorced. This rational view doesn't explain it, hence my input.
As for idiotic part, see above post.
Ignorants they used to be, but since those people still exist even considering progresses we did onthe subject, can be qualified as idiots, as they refuse to learn.
Anyway, it doesn't matter much that I did call them idiots instead of ignorants, what I should have done.

[Melisandre]

A better argument would be the following:

Racism against black people is a consequence of the existence of black people. If there were no black people, there would not be racism against black people.

Quite true, I stand corrected.

A similar reasoning would be that the primary cause of death is life, or the primary cause of divorce is marriage, since without life, there would be no death, and without marriages, there would be no divorces..
There's no emotion attached to any of those statements. At least, no emotion can be deduced from them, as it should be.


Anyone who brings words like "idiotic" to the table adds an unnecessary and irrelevant emotional edge to discussions, and does in fact destroy the logical integrity of the discussion. Some people are quite emotional.

Yet, those statements explain not much. Because for example, why would couple A remain married while couple B divorced? Both married, one divorced. This rational view doesn't explain it, hence my input.
As for idiotic part, see above post.
Ignorants they used to be, but since those people still exist even considering progresses we did onthe subject, can be qualified as idiots, as they refuse to learn.

You do not see the logical connection that if there is no marriage, there can be no divorce?! My goodness.. did emotion kill your logical abilities completely?!

You pretend I say that if you marry, you will divorce?! That is obviously not the case. However, if you are not married, you cannot divorce, hence, to divorce, marriage is required. If there would be no marriage at all, there would be no divorces at all.
How hard can it be to understand.. And you suggest we are the one with the single digit IQ. Pfft.. sad.

By your logic, Pops, racism does not exist.

Do you get that Don Quixote vibe too?

[Cole]

By your logic, Pops, racism does not exist.

Yes it does.
Just because the reasons aren't right, doesn't mean that they don't appear as reasons for those people.
Racism should not exist with my theory, but that's why I introduced factor of ingorance/idiotism to explain it. Some people deny the truth and want to belive false things.

A better argument would be the following:

Racism against black people is a consequence of the existence of black people. If there were no black people, there would not be racism against black people.

Quite true, I stand corrected.

A similar reasoning would be that the primary cause of death is life, or the primary cause of divorce is marriage, since without life, there would be no death, and without marriages, there would be no divorces..
There's no emotion attached to any of those statements. At least, no emotion can be deduced from them, as it should be.


Anyone who brings words like "idiotic" to the table adds an unnecessary and irrelevant emotional edge to discussions, and does in fact destroy the logical integrity of the discussion. Some people are quite emotional.

Yet, those statements explain not much. Because for example, why would couple A remain married while couple B divorced? Both married, one divorced. This rational view doesn't explain it, hence my input.
As for idiotic part, see above post.
Ignorants they used to be, but since those people still exist even considering progresses we did onthe subject, can be qualified as idiots, as they refuse to learn.

You do not see the logical connection that if there is no marriage, there can be no divorce?! My goodness.. did emotion kill your logical abilities completely?!

You pretend I say that if you marry, you will divorce?! That is obviously not the case. However, if you are not married, you cannot divorce, hence, to divorce, marriage is required. If there would be no marriage at all, there would be no divorces at all.
How hard can it be to understand.. And you suggest we are the one with the single digit IQ. Pfft.. sad.

I don't see your point at all, because that's not what I said, but, whatever!

[agapooka]

Nobody's saying that a given situation can bring about only one result. We're just pointing at the root situation capable of bringing about this particular result, where there is no other such situation with that capability.

This is all I have time to comment on. There's no point in exposing every single assumption and breach of logic I observe in the posts above. I like to criticise Ms Universe's posts, because I don't find very many and I don't need to spend an hour analysing something that originally took 5 minutes to write.

[Cole]

A better argument would be the following:

Racism against black people is a consequence of the existence of black people. If there were no black people, there would not be racism against black people.

Quite true, I stand corrected.

A similar reasoning would be that the primary cause of death is life, or the primary cause of divorce is marriage, since without life, there would be no death, and without marriages, there would be no divorces..
There's no emotion attached to any of those statements. At least, no emotion can be deduced from them, as it should be.


Anyone who brings words like "idiotic" to the table adds an unnecessary and irrelevant emotional edge to discussions, and does in fact destroy the logical integrity of the discussion. Some people are quite emotional.

Yet, those statements explain not much. Because for example, why would couple A remain married while couple B divorced? Both married, one divorced. This rational view doesn't explain it, hence my input.
As for idiotic part, see above post.
Ignorants they used to be, but since those people still exist even considering progresses we did onthe subject, can be qualified as idiots, as they refuse to learn.

You do not see the logical connection that if there is no marriage, there can be no divorce?! My goodness.. did emotion kill your logical abilities completely?!

You pretend I say that if you marry, you will divorce?! That is obviously not the case. However, if you are not married, you cannot divorce, hence, to divorce, marriage is required. If there would be no marriage at all, there would be no divorces at all.
How hard can it be to understand.. And you suggest we are the one with the single digit IQ. Pfft.. sad.

By your logic, Pops, racism does not exist.

Do you get that Don Quixote vibe too?

Nice going at twisting my words, sadly, that's not what I meant!

I'm not going to explain myself every post I do, it's starting to be bit annoying otherwise..

EDIT:

And you suggest we are the one with the single digit IQ. Pfft.. sad.

Awww are you implying you feel targeted by my comments on racist people from KKK?
I thought you were just *roleplaying* it, you shouldn't feel targeted then, wouldn't you?

[Cole]

By your logic, Pops, racism does not exist.

Yes it does.
Just because the reasons aren't right, doesn't mean that they don't appear as reasons for those people.
Racism should not exist with my theory, but that's why I introduced factor of ingorance/idiotism to explain it. Some people deny the truth and want to belive false things.

If there is but one race, then racism cannot exist. Those claiming it does and/or claiming someone is racist is, again by your logic, idiotic.

By your logic, Pops, racism does not exist.

Do you get that Don Quixote vibe too?

Indeed I do.

Again, read what I said. There's one race. In reality. BUT, not all people think it, they do think there are races, and this word has been created *before* we know there's only one race, so, racism exist, just that the wording is now inaccurate. The sense it has still exists, but the definition and wording became inaccurate, however, the meant sense, is still right.

[agapooka]

We could be racist towards dogs. Heck, I've always treated my dog as if it were subhuman.

[Cole]

We could be racist towards dogs. Heck, I've always treated my dog as if it were subhuman.

Or there, even a racism against dobermans or bulldogs for example would be accurate.


Oh and since I'm going away for few hours, @ Auriel:
What I meant was that your explanation would say why divorces exist, but not why divorce happen in some couples. The same goes for yours/pookie def of racism vs mine. You say why it does exist, I explained why it happend. Knowing something exists is a thing, knowing why/how it happens is another!

Also, playing and being is two different things, so, unless you realy are part of those racist people, I don't see why you should feel targeted by my statement of their low IQs...

[Juliette]

Aye, Jack. That be true.

Anyway, Legendary Apophis' emotional nonsense and derogatory personal attacks convince me once again that certain decisions I made were the best I ever could. Yay me.

[Cole]

Aye, Jack. That be true.

Anyway, Legendary Apophis' emotional nonsense and derogatory personal attacks convince me once again that certain decisions I made were the best I ever could. Yay me.

Emotional nonsense...sure. I did the exact opposite. If it's emotional to bring history things instead of "there are days and nights because there's a sun" stuff, then yes, I am emotional!
Personal attacks? Show them to me. I'm quite wondering lol
Good for you if you think you made right choices, looks like afterall you are blinded in your own opinion and that you have insinuated stuff about me and you'll no matter how I act. I feel that I was right as well, it's not how I act that is the problem, it's me.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, it won't make it be always true however.