Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Racism

Racism Do you feel that affirmative action should be expired, or do you feel that it should still be enforced? Defend your views on affirmative action in this forum.


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 10th, 2017, 06:56 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 68
How to tell if someone is being racist

If someone uses race/ethnicity as a criteria for any purpose other than to describe someone or their background (e.g. for identification purposes, such as when police are looking for a suspect) or for medical purposes (e.g., skin cancer, etc.), then they are being racist.
Thanks from Sabcat
Neil is offline  
Old November 10th, 2017, 09:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
If someone uses race/ethnicity as a criteria for any purpose other than to describe someone or their background (e.g. for identification purposes, such as when police are looking for a suspect) or for medical purposes (e.g., skin cancer, etc.), then they are being racist.
You just described everybody I ever met.
discollector is online now  
Old November 10th, 2017, 10:34 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
You just described everybody I ever met.
Bummer.
Neil is offline  
Old November 11th, 2017, 06:52 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Bummer.
I think the word is over-played. We've all been programmed, Pavlovian style, to think that race (or the other guy's motivation) to be the only factor in any given dispute.

While there are things I'm personally opposed to (forced racial amalgamation, inter-racial marriage, etc.) it plays no part in other aspects of what I believe about a person. Just as I have an aversion to smokers, a lot of smokers are good employees. A guy may have a wife of a different race and still be a good employee, a loyal friend, or run an honest business.
discollector is online now  
Old November 11th, 2017, 11:53 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I think the word is over-played. We've all been programmed, Pavlovian style, to think that race (or the other guy's motivation) to be the only factor in any given dispute.

While there are things I'm personally opposed to (forced racial amalgamation, inter-racial marriage, etc.) it plays no part in other aspects of what I believe about a person. Just as I have an aversion to smokers, a lot of smokers are good employees. A guy may have a wife of a different race and still be a good employee, a loyal friend, or run an honest business.
I'm opposed to anything being forced or coerced based on race/ethnicity - forced segregation or forced integration.

I'm for a free market, where people decide where they want to live, where they want to work or go to school (where they want to apply for a job, be a student, etc.), who they want to associate with, where and when they want to travel, etc.

Anything that's forced or coerced is done by the state, with armed agents, and when it's done for purposes other than to bring someone accused of breaking the law - a law where there's a victim (individual or collective, such as traffic violation), is socialism. State-imposed racism is socialist.

Are you only talking about being opposed to inter-racial marriage for yourself (i.e., you're opposed to your own spouses being of a different race than what you are), or are you talking about people other than you who enter into a marriage? If you're talking about people other than you, why is it any of your business what other people do with each other? If you could have your way, what is it you would want to be done in order to implement your opposition to inter-racial marriage? Would you have the state get those who want to enter into an inter-racial marriage and throw in prison? How exactly would you test people who want to marry each other to determine whether they're the same race or different?

Why bother with this nonsense, anyways (I mean, I think it's nonsense), which seems like a complete waste of taxpayer money? What exactly is wrong with people who you perceive as being of different races getting married to each other? Why is that a crime? Who's the victim? How is the "victim" actually a victim?
Thanks from imaginethat

Last edited by Neil; November 11th, 2017 at 11:56 AM.
Neil is offline  
Old November 11th, 2017, 07:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: upnorth
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
If someone uses race/ethnicity as a criteria for any purpose other than to describe someone or their background (e.g. for identification purposes, such as when police are looking for a suspect) or for medical purposes (e.g., skin cancer, etc.), then they are being racist.
The thought police has spoken.
Pilgrim is offline  
Old November 11th, 2017, 09:20 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
I'm opposed to anything being forced or coerced based on race/ethnicity - forced segregation or forced integration.

I'm for a free market, where people decide where they want to live, where they want to work or go to school (where they want to apply for a job, be a student, etc.), who they want to associate with, where and when they want to travel, etc.

Anything that's forced or coerced is done by the state, with armed agents, and when it's done for purposes other than to bring someone accused of breaking the law - a law where there's a victim (individual or collective, such as traffic violation), is socialism. State-imposed racism is socialist.

Are you only talking about being opposed to inter-racial marriage for yourself (i.e., you're opposed to your own spouses being of a different race than what you are), or are you talking about people other than you who enter into a marriage? If you're talking about people other than you, why is it any of your business what other people do with each other? If you could have your way, what is it you would want to be done in order to implement your opposition to inter-racial marriage? Would you have the state get those who want to enter into an inter-racial marriage and throw in prison? How exactly would you test people who want to marry each other to determine whether they're the same race or different?

Why bother with this nonsense, anyways (I mean, I think it's nonsense), which seems like a complete waste of taxpayer money? What exactly is wrong with people who you perceive as being of different races getting married to each other? Why is that a crime? Who's the victim? How is the "victim" actually a victim?

I've been cursed, sworn at, called names, stalked, shot at, robbed, beaten and even banned from these discussion boards for advocating the same, identical position.

Take the immigration debacle. I advocate that if you create a job you should be able to hire whomever you want. If that person is undocumented, so what? But the busybodies think we should register all human beings. They can't separate citizenship from unalienable Rights. You can't register undocumented foreigners to vote and they shouldn't be able to reach into the welfare system, but having private business with private entities... another issue altogether.

Unlike you, however, I would acknowledge that racists have the same Rights as you. So, if they choose to have separate neighborhoods, hire only people of the same race as themselves, and segregated private schools.. etc. then welcome to it. The government says if you want to do business with government entities you cannot have discriminatory practices. But, private entities to private entities owe the public / government nothing.

You misunderstand me. I don't want the government involved in implementing my views about marriage or racial relationships... one way or the other. Who you choose to associate with - on any grounds is not the government's jurisdiction under our Constitution (if it were being properly interpreted.)

Insofar as being involved in marriage, it is not the government's call in a constitutional Republic. Likewise, if a minister does not want to perform an inter-racial wedding, we should not impose on them. It can't be a crime to marry someone of another race, but it does create victims.
discollector is online now  
Old November 12th, 2017, 01:53 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim View Post
The thought police has spoken.
So defending the truth mean the thought police have spoken? Just checking.
Neil is offline  
Old November 12th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I've been cursed, sworn at, called names, stalked, shot at, robbed, beaten and even banned from these discussion boards for advocating the same, identical position.
Well, don't expect me to do this sort of stuff; none of these are arguments or rebuttals to arguments. I'm a libertarian, not a socialist, which means I'm for freedom of speech and prefer free exchange of ideas over violence or threats of violence against someone I don't agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Take the immigration debacle.
You'll have to explain what that is. The United States is a country made up predominantly by immigrants from all over the world, made up of every race/ethnicity, and it is one of the greatest (in terms of economics, liberty, tertiary education, being technologically advanced, etc.).

If you're referring to illegal aliens entering the US, technically that's not (legal) immigration. In practice, some might remain, but typically they only come here to work for a few months then they go back home for the rest of the year, then return next year to work here again for a few months. You've probably heard about how they will send money back to their home countries, well what they're doing is sending it to their wives & children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I advocate that if you create a job you should be able to hire whomever you want. If that person is undocumented, so what? But the busybodies think we should register all human beings. They can't separate citizenship from unalienable Rights. You can't register undocumented foreigners to vote and they shouldn't be able to reach into the welfare system, but having private business with private entities... another issue altogether.
I can get into this, but not on this thread; it might get a bit involved and that's not what the topic of this thread or forum section is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Unlike you, however, I would acknowledge that racists have the same Rights as you.
I never said racists don't have the same rights as everyone else; I don't need to say anything like that and I don't want to say anything like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
So, if they choose to have separate neighborhoods, hire only people of the same race as themselves, and segregated private schools.. etc. then welcome to it.
I want to have nothing to do with that sort of thing; I want no association with it. As long as they can keep that kind of stuff private on their own private property, behind closed & locked doors and fences, where the public can't see or hear about what they do in there, and the state isn't forcing such segregation, or forcing them to integrate with the public, I don't see a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
The government says if you want to do business with government entities you cannot have discriminatory practices.
Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
But, private entities to private entities owe the public / government nothing.
Let's suppose this is true; would you then say that the public/government also owe them nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
You misunderstand me. I don't want the government involved in implementing my views about marriage or racial relationships... one way or the other. Who you choose to associate with - on any grounds is not the government's jurisdiction under our Constitution (if it were being properly interpreted.)

Insofar as being involved in marriage, it is not the government's call in a constitutional Republic. Likewise, if a minister does not want to perform an inter-racial wedding, we should not impose on them. It can't be a crime to marry someone of another race, but it does create victims.
I don't think government should be getting involved in marriage at all, including issuing marriage licenses, laws on bigamy or cohabitation, tax breaks for married couples, etc. Marriage is a religious thing and getting the state involved in marriage in any way is a merger of church and state, which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment here in the US.
Thanks from imaginethat
Neil is offline  
Old November 12th, 2017, 07:39 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Well, don't expect me to do this sort of stuff; none of these are arguments or rebuttals to arguments. I'm a libertarian, not a socialist, which means I'm for freedom of speech and prefer free exchange of ideas over violence or threats of violence against someone I don't agree with.


You'll have to explain what that is. The United States is a country made up predominantly by immigrants from all over the world, made up of every race/ethnicity, and it is one of the greatest (in terms of economics, liberty, tertiary education, being technologically advanced, etc.).

If you're referring to illegal aliens entering the US, technically that's not (legal) immigration. In practice, some might remain, but typically they only come here to work for a few months then they go back home for the rest of the year, then return next year to work here again for a few months. You've probably heard about how they will send money back to their home countries, well what they're doing is sending it to their wives & children.


I can get into this, but not on this thread; it might get a bit involved and that's not what the topic of this thread or forum section is about.


I never said racists don't have the same rights as everyone else; I don't need to say anything like that and I don't want to say anything like that.


I want to have nothing to do with that sort of thing; I want no association with it. As long as they can keep that kind of stuff private on their own private property, behind closed & locked doors and fences, where the public can't see or hear about what they do in there, and the state isn't forcing such segregation, or forcing them to integrate with the public, I don't see a problem.


Good.


Let's suppose this is true; would you then say that the public/government also owe them nothing?


I don't think government should be getting involved in marriage at all, including issuing marriage licenses, laws on bigamy or cohabitation, tax breaks for married couples, etc. Marriage is a religious thing and getting the state involved in marriage in any way is a merger of church and state, which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment here in the US.
1) Gee - too many paragraphs to respond. We're both on the same page here so no response necessary

2) As you stated, the immigration issue requires its own thread. But, the debacle is simply this:

Most Americans feel that unless you are a National ID wearing, Socialist Surveillance Number - oooops...Social Security Number owning, background checked, certified, registered and government subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, you don't have any Rights. Most Americans don't get it that being in the U.S. without papers is not a crime - and, above all else, many people are here operating legally without papers because there was no credible and proper way for them to enter. No need to say anything else here as it is a separate topic and if anyone wants a response, they will start a relevant thread.

3) Your third paragraph is non-responsive in that we are not addressing any specifics so go to

4) I haven't accused you of anything. I'm just articulating my view which is 180 degrees opposite of what both the left and the right say regarding racial issues

5) I differ with you that people should keep their lifestyles behind locked doors, etc. I just finished watching NCIS Los Angeles. The main actor portrays a devout Muslim on the job and Americans are comfortable allowing people to be like that in real life. If someone is Christian, racist, separatist, anti- gay marriage, right of center, pro-gun, or even cognizant of the attempts to destroy America via multiculturalism, then we try to lock them out of society. That is why America ended up with Donald Trump

6) Nothing to discuss in that paragraph. I'm neutral

7) When I said that But, private entities to private entities owe the public / government nothing, it should have continued on the government owes them nothing. You should not have to register a church and if you believe all that hooey about a separation of church and state, the church should operate tax free AND people should not be able to write off donated money as a deduction... AND the government should be expressed prohibited from setting church policies and / or tenets of faith

We are in agreement on the balance of your points.
Thanks from imaginethat
discollector is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Racism

Tags
racist



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Racist..... urbrother Civil Rights 15 October 3rd, 2016 11:07 PM
Everyone's a Racist RNG Social Issues 15 April 4th, 2014 01:49 PM
Bob is a racist Bookworm Racism 89 September 3rd, 2012 10:20 PM
Is this racist 2 fxashun Racism 2 July 28th, 2009 06:30 PM
Is this racist? fxashun Racism 156 July 24th, 2009 04:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.