(05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
(05-17-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I expect the liberals/leftists who occasionally post here will ignore the questions because they do not like the source (and in some cases, the answers). But the questions seem to be mostly pretty pointed. Unfortunately he does not tell us how to score the quiz.
In the spirit of fair play and dialogue, here are my answers:
1. No
2. statement
3. Noble
4.Yes and no. It tells me something about their probable politics - nothing about their probable abilities.
5. No
6. ---
7. Yes
8. No
9. no
10. ---
11. no
12. no
13. no
14. yes
15. worse
16. yes
17. no, not in the sense that choice is usually presented
18. Yes
19. Biased
20. yes
21 No
22. illegals
23. No
24. yes
25. Armed
26. With parental consent under 18.
27. No
28. No
29. No
30 yes. (This will surprise some people.)
31. Free speech allows for hate speech
32. ----
You wanna know a good way to NOT foster a healthy dialogue? Hint: see bold.
Ah, yes, the old "If you don't walk on eggshells around us" routine.
93 says he will respond. What about you? great way to prove me wrong.
Yes, pointing out an openly and obviously antagonistic response that was literally uncalled for (it was the first post of a thread) is somehow telling you that you have to walk on eggshells.
These questions are hilariously bad and regularly don't owe to yes/no
1. Yes/No - depends on the situation. All-black dorms? No. All black graduation as an addition to normal graduation? Sure
2. Neither
3. Noble
4. It can - depends on the context
5. No
6. ???
7. They can be biased against others - some people define racism in a way that would say otherwise (when it comes to power dynamics)
8. No
9. No
10. ---
11. No
12. No to the reason for fighting. Haven't read the project, so can't comment on the founding argument
13. No
14. Yes
15. Worse
16. Yes
17. ???? too broad to answer - no idea how far the "fundamentally transform" goes
18. Yes
19. I guess Fox isn't mainstream... I think there is a big difference, across the board, in the news portions of all MSM and the opinions section. News desks from CNN to Fox to NYTime to WSJ tries to present infromation accurately.
20. Yes
21. No (for absolute), yes (in many instances)
22. Undocumented
23. Depends
24. Depends
25. Neither - signage doesn't matter. Is there an armed guard present or not?
26. Tough - if < 18, definitely require parental consent
27. Agnostic - don't care
28. I err on the side of not legislating against this - how deep do we want to get in legislating things below the belt?
29. Maybe? Is there an instance of a man giving birth? Odd question.
30. I don't disagree with it.
31. Depends on the definition of hate speech (i.e. if it includes threats of violence). If it's just "X people suck" then yes, it is free speech
32. --
(05-17-2021 12:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 11:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]1. I don't know. Will these "all-black dorms" really not allow any other race? If that's the case, then no.
2. U of C
3. Noble, but it's just that, a goal. You can't be "color-blind" in 2021.
4. Yes. It MAY lend a clue towards somebody's experiences.
5. No
6. ---
7. Yes
8. No
9. No
10. ---
11. No
12. I didn't watch it so hard to answer. I don't know about about the causes of the Revolutionary War when it comes to slavery so I don't have an educated opinion on that one.
13. No
14. Yes
15. Worse is many ways, better in some ways
16. Yes
17. No
18. Yes
19. No... they are biased on both sides (Good God this "article" blows chunks)
20. Yes
21 No
22. U.I.
23. No
24. I mean... hard to answer that without more context.
25. Slight lean to "gun-free". Nothing about the possible issues with teachers carrying guns is brought up here (of course).
26. With parental consent under 18.
27. Yes
28. No
29. I don't understand his angle here.
30 Yes
31. Yes
32. ----
We certainly differ on a lot of them, but the puzzler to me is #12. In 7 decades of American History, I have never never heard of slavery being a motivator for anything the colonists did. Seems the issue was always taxation.
I'm saying that I didn't watch that series and my assumption is that an argument was made for slavery being one of the drivers for the American Revolution. I'm not going to dismiss that argument outright without knowing it. Agree that I wasn't taught in school that slavery was a motivator but I'm open to the possibility that my education didn't provide the complete story.
I am just wondering why slavery was a motivator for all those guys from New York, Vermont, , Pennsylvania, et all to rebel against the King.
People have been writing and analyzing American history since about the time Cornwallis set sail for England, and its only recently that anybody has decided slavery was an issue.
Quote:Quote:In #29, I didn't look for an angle. I just answered the question.
It's a dumb question. "Men give birth"? Who says that? Did he mean "There is the possibility that science will advance to the point that men are able to carry and deliver babies?"?
men give birth
Follow the science.
Like you, I dismissed it out of hand.
(05-17-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I expect the liberals/leftists who occasionally post here will ignore the questions because they do not like the source (and in some cases, the answers). But the questions seem to be mostly pretty pointed. Unfortunately he does not tell us how to score the quiz.
In the spirit of fair play and dialogue, here are my answers:
1. No
2. statement
3. Noble
4.Yes and no. It tells me something about their probable politics - nothing about their probable abilities.
5. No
6. ---
7. Yes
8. No
9. no
10. ---
11. no
12. no
13. no
14. yes
15. worse
16. yes
17. no, not in the sense that choice is usually presented
18. Yes
19. Biased
20. yes
21 No
22. illegals
23. No
24. yes
25. Armed
26. With parental consent under 18.
27. No
28. No
29. No
30 yes. (This will surprise some people.)
31. Free speech allows for hate speech
32. ----
You wanna know a good way to NOT foster a healthy dialogue? Hint: see bold.
Ah, yes, the old "If you don't walk on eggshells around us" routine.
93 says he will respond. What about you? great way to prove me wrong.
Yes, pointing out an openly and obviously antagonistic response that was literally uncalled for (it was the first post of a thread) is somehow telling you that you have to walk on eggshells.
First, since it was first, it was not a response. If anything, it was a prediction.
Second, you guys always seem to find something to take umbrage at. So far, you are proving me right.
(05-17-2021 01:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
My problem with *all* racism is that when you get down to it, the definition of 'race' is problematic.
I had heard that the individual genetic variations between any two individuals, say, you and me, is typically as great, if not greater, than that of between any supposed 'race'.
Also, the three societies that seem hell bent on providing for legal 'racial delineation' in the 20th and 21st century are Germany (1934-1945), South Africa (pre 1996 Constitution), and the United States currently.
So, how do *you* define 'black' as a race? How do *you* define 'asian' as a race? Serious questions 93.... I would appreciate an answer. Or do you simply believe that those who write the laws somehow get this correct, and you just dont care about those underlying issues and the genesis of what constitutes a 'race', not to mention what the particular 'races' are.
I mean, the obvious conclusion genetically is that we are all the human race, and that 'race' as a legal construct is infirm for various sundry reasons. Yet, interestingly enough it is the progressives that wish to maintain legal racial definitions and support in the law for racial-based advantages and disadvantages. All on the pretty fairly stupid and idiotic rain dance of somehow 'defining' a race.
I would say the progressives in the modern era are sharing some pretty exalted and lofty political space with the Afrikaaner nation pre -'96 and the Third Reich in that respect.
(05-17-2021 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I expect the liberals/leftists who occasionally post here will ignore the questions because they do not like the source (and in some cases, the answers). But the questions seem to be mostly pretty pointed. Unfortunately he does not tell us how to score the quiz.
In the spirit of fair play and dialogue, here are my answers:
1. No
2. statement
3. Noble
4.Yes and no. It tells me something about their probable politics - nothing about their probable abilities.
5. No
6. ---
7. Yes
8. No
9. no
10. ---
11. no
12. no
13. no
14. yes
15. worse
16. yes
17. no, not in the sense that choice is usually presented
18. Yes
19. Biased
20. yes
21 No
22. illegals
23. No
24. yes
25. Armed
26. With parental consent under 18.
27. No
28. No
29. No
30 yes. (This will surprise some people.)
31. Free speech allows for hate speech
32. ----
You wanna know a good way to NOT foster a healthy dialogue? Hint: see bold.
Ah, yes, the old "If you don't walk on eggshells around us" routine.
93 says he will respond. What about you? great way to prove me wrong.
Yes, pointing out an openly and obviously antagonistic response that was literally uncalled for (it was the first post of a thread) is somehow telling you that you have to walk on eggshells.
First, since it was first, it was not a response. If anything, it was a prediction.
Second, you guys always seem to find something to take umbrage at. So far, you are proving me right.
OO... when you provide your morning links you always seem to include a slight towards "our side".
(05-17-2021 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I expect the liberals/leftists who occasionally post here will ignore the questions because they do not like the source (and in some cases, the answers). But the questions seem to be mostly pretty pointed. Unfortunately he does not tell us how to score the quiz.
In the spirit of fair play and dialogue, here are my answers:
1. No
2. statement
3. Noble
4.Yes and no. It tells me something about their probable politics - nothing about their probable abilities.
5. No
6. ---
7. Yes
8. No
9. no
10. ---
11. no
12. no
13. no
14. yes
15. worse
16. yes
17. no, not in the sense that choice is usually presented
18. Yes
19. Biased
20. yes
21 No
22. illegals
23. No
24. yes
25. Armed
26. With parental consent under 18.
27. No
28. No
29. No
30 yes. (This will surprise some people.)
31. Free speech allows for hate speech
32. ----
You wanna know a good way to NOT foster a healthy dialogue? Hint: see bold.
Ah, yes, the old "If you don't walk on eggshells around us" routine.
93 says he will respond. What about you? great way to prove me wrong.
Yes, pointing out an openly and obviously antagonistic response that was literally uncalled for (it was the first post of a thread) is somehow telling you that you have to walk on eggshells.
First, since it was first, it was not a response. If anything, it was a prediction.
Second, you guys always seem to find something to take umbrage at. So far, you are proving me right.
Why not just apologize for needlessly being rude? Or do you just want to double down that the antagonistic "prediction" was an appropriate way to start a thread?
(05-17-2021 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
My problem with *all* racism is that when you get down to it, the definition of 'race' is problematic.
I had heard that the individual genetic variations between any two individuals, say, you and me, is typically as great, if not greater, than that of between any supposed 'race'.
Also, the three societies that seem hell bent on providing for legal 'racial delineation' in the 20th and 21st century are Germany (1934-1945), South Africa (pre 1996 Constitution), and the United States currently.
So, how do *you* define 'black' as a race? How do *you* define 'asian' as a race? Serious questions 93.... I would appreciate an answer. Or do you simply believe that those who write the laws somehow get this correct, and you just dont care about those underlying issues and the genesis of what constitutes a 'race', not to mention what the particular 'races' are.
I mean, the obvious conclusion genetically is that we are all the human race, and that 'race' as a legal construct is infirm for various sundry reasons. Yet, interestingly enough it is the progressives that wish to maintain legal racial definitions and support in the law for racial-based advantages and disadvantages. All on the pretty fairly stupid and idiotic rain dance of somehow 'defining' a race.
I would say the progressives in the modern era are sharing some pretty exalted and lofty political space with the Afrikaaner nation pre -'96 and the Third Reich in that respect.
29 posts to prove Godwin's law when it comes to progressives. A new record!
(05-17-2021 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]These questions are hilariously bad and regularly don't owe to yes/no
1. Yes/No - depends on the situation. All-black dorms? No. All black graduation as an addition to normal graduation? Sure
Copacetic with all white graduations?
Quote:4. It can - depends on the context
What contexts give amazingly important information? What give little?
Quote:7. They can be biased against others - some people define racism in a way that would say otherwise (when it comes to power dynamics)
Even in the one prong definition that you champion like a champ, I think most would say the New Black Panthers absolutely *are* racist --- in every sense of the word.
Quote:28. I err on the side of not legislating against this - how deep do we want to get in legislating things below the belt?
It may not necessarily be 'legislate'. UIL rules are *not* legislating. I have zero issues with local schools and sports organizations having the ability to restrict.
Quote:29. Maybe? Is there an instance of a man giving birth? Odd question.
Yet one may be banned from twitter for saying the opposite, banned as 'hate speech'.
(05-17-2021 02:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
My problem with *all* racism is that when you get down to it, the definition of 'race' is problematic.
I had heard that the individual genetic variations between any two individuals, say, you and me, is typically as great, if not greater, than that of between any supposed 'race'.
Also, the three societies that seem hell bent on providing for legal 'racial delineation' in the 20th and 21st century are Germany (1934-1945), South Africa (pre 1996 Constitution), and the United States currently.
So, how do *you* define 'black' as a race? How do *you* define 'asian' as a race? Serious questions 93.... I would appreciate an answer. Or do you simply believe that those who write the laws somehow get this correct, and you just dont care about those underlying issues and the genesis of what constitutes a 'race', not to mention what the particular 'races' are.
I mean, the obvious conclusion genetically is that we are all the human race, and that 'race' as a legal construct is infirm for various sundry reasons. Yet, interestingly enough it is the progressives that wish to maintain legal racial definitions and support in the law for racial-based advantages and disadvantages. All on the pretty fairly stupid and idiotic rain dance of somehow 'defining' a race.
I would say the progressives in the modern era are sharing some pretty exalted and lofty political space with the Afrikaaner nation pre -'96 and the Third Reich in that respect.
29 posts to prove Godwin's law when it comes to progressives. A new record!
Yet no substantive response to the issue of race from you on that specific topic -- is there? As in zero, zilch, nada, the null set.
Amazing that, isnt it?
(05-17-2021 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
My problem with *all* racism is that when you get down to it, the definition of 'race' is problematic.
I had heard that the individual genetic variations between any two individuals, say, you and me, is typically as great, if not greater, than that of between any supposed 'race'.
Also, the three societies that seem hell bent on providing for legal 'racial delineation' in the 20th and 21st century are Germany (1934-1945), South Africa (pre 1996 Constitution), and the United States currently.
So, how do *you* define 'black' as a race? How do *you* define 'asian' as a race? Serious questions 93.... I would appreciate an answer. Or do you simply believe that those who write the laws somehow get this correct, and you just dont care about those underlying issues and the genesis of what constitutes a 'race', not to mention what the particular 'races' are.
I mean, the obvious conclusion genetically is that we are all the human race, and that 'race' as a legal construct is infirm for various sundry reasons. Yet, interestingly enough it is the progressives that wish to maintain legal racial definitions and support in the law for racial-based advantages and disadvantages. All on the pretty fairly stupid and idiotic rain dance of somehow 'defining' a race.
I would say the progressives in the modern era are sharing some pretty exalted and lofty political space with the Afrikaaner nation pre -'96 and the Third Reich in that respect.
Being upset with with the phrase "there is only one race - the human race" is like being upset with the phrase "All Lives Matter".
Defining "black as race" goes back to early anthropology. But the leftists/liberals in this country have redefined it as 'african', as in African-American, completely ignoring the many dark skinned people from places other than Africa - Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Melanesia. I met a black man once who set me straight in a hurry - he was neither of African ancestry nor or American Citizenry.
"Asian" at least covers a geographic area. I have a friend who is Thai, and he says he can tell a Viet from a Thai from a Japanesefrom a Korean, etc., at a glance. I doubt all Asian-americans look the same to him.
And even though I have had two DNA analyses, it appears I have zero ancestors from the Caucasus. In fact, I probably have more from Asia via my "native American' genes. Does that make me Asian-American?
But race is much more important to leftists/liberals, I agree.
(05-17-2021 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You wanna know a good way to NOT foster a healthy dialogue? Hint: see bold.
Ah, yes, the old "If you don't walk on eggshells around us" routine.
93 says he will respond. What about you? great way to prove me wrong.
Yes, pointing out an openly and obviously antagonistic response that was literally uncalled for (it was the first post of a thread) is somehow telling you that you have to walk on eggshells.
First, since it was first, it was not a response. If anything, it was a prediction.
Second, you guys always seem to find something to take umbrage at. So far, you are proving me right.
OO... when you provide your morning links you always seem to include a slight towards "our side".
Well, I guess I missed the point that my mission was to be as neutral as Switzerland.
(05-17-2021 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You wanna know a good way to NOT foster a healthy dialogue? Hint: see bold.
Ah, yes, the old "If you don't walk on eggshells around us" routine.
93 says he will respond. What about you? great way to prove me wrong.
Yes, pointing out an openly and obviously antagonistic response that was literally uncalled for (it was the first post of a thread) is somehow telling you that you have to walk on eggshells.
First, since it was first, it was not a response. If anything, it was a prediction.
Second, you guys always seem to find something to take umbrage at. So far, you are proving me right.
Why not just apologize for needlessly being rude? Or do you just want to double down that the antagonistic "prediction" was an appropriate way to start a thread?
You are the rude one. But I can live with that.
(05-17-2021 02:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 02:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
My problem with *all* racism is that when you get down to it, the definition of 'race' is problematic.
I had heard that the individual genetic variations between any two individuals, say, you and me, is typically as great, if not greater, than that of between any supposed 'race'.
Also, the three societies that seem hell bent on providing for legal 'racial delineation' in the 20th and 21st century are Germany (1934-1945), South Africa (pre 1996 Constitution), and the United States currently.
So, how do *you* define 'black' as a race? How do *you* define 'asian' as a race? Serious questions 93.... I would appreciate an answer. Or do you simply believe that those who write the laws somehow get this correct, and you just dont care about those underlying issues and the genesis of what constitutes a 'race', not to mention what the particular 'races' are.
I mean, the obvious conclusion genetically is that we are all the human race, and that 'race' as a legal construct is infirm for various sundry reasons. Yet, interestingly enough it is the progressives that wish to maintain legal racial definitions and support in the law for racial-based advantages and disadvantages. All on the pretty fairly stupid and idiotic rain dance of somehow 'defining' a race.
I would say the progressives in the modern era are sharing some pretty exalted and lofty political space with the Afrikaaner nation pre -'96 and the Third Reich in that respect.
29 posts to prove Godwin's law when it comes to progressives. A new record!
Yet no substantive response to the issue of race from you on that specific topic -- is there? As in zero, zilch, nada, the null set.
Amazing that, isnt it?
Tanq, you are very close to cracking some eggshells. Anything short of
is rude.
(05-17-2021 02:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 02:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2. "There is only one race—the human race" is racist? *That* one to me is a serious head scratcher.
I guess I am disagreeing here with the first part "There is only one race" more than stating the premise is "racist".
My problem with *all* racism is that when you get down to it, the definition of 'race' is problematic.
I had heard that the individual genetic variations between any two individuals, say, you and me, is typically as great, if not greater, than that of between any supposed 'race'.
Also, the three societies that seem hell bent on providing for legal 'racial delineation' in the 20th and 21st century are Germany (1934-1945), South Africa (pre 1996 Constitution), and the United States currently.
So, how do *you* define 'black' as a race? How do *you* define 'asian' as a race? Serious questions 93.... I would appreciate an answer. Or do you simply believe that those who write the laws somehow get this correct, and you just dont care about those underlying issues and the genesis of what constitutes a 'race', not to mention what the particular 'races' are.
I mean, the obvious conclusion genetically is that we are all the human race, and that 'race' as a legal construct is infirm for various sundry reasons. Yet, interestingly enough it is the progressives that wish to maintain legal racial definitions and support in the law for racial-based advantages and disadvantages. All on the pretty fairly stupid and idiotic rain dance of somehow 'defining' a race.
I would say the progressives in the modern era are sharing some pretty exalted and lofty political space with the Afrikaaner nation pre -'96 and the Third Reich in that respect.
29 posts to prove Godwin's law when it comes to progressives. A new record!
Yet no substantive response to the issue of race from you on that specific topic -- is there? As in zero, zilch, nada, the null set.
Amazing that, isnt it?
Not in that specific response, no. I thought the far more compelling item to comment on was how quickly you came to liken progressives to Nazi's.
Do some progressives go too far on race? Absolutely.
But to go down your path ignores reality that race does exist and that plenty of people in the world discriminate others based on their race. In the end, it does not matter how you, I, or 93 define personally define race if there are others in the world that will use their own definition of race to discriminate against others.
And when you go down the path of writing laws that define race, what is the alternative but to write laws without consideration to race. That means one would have to be OK with it being legal to discriminate against others due to their race, and I'm not OK with that situation.
In a civil society, I do not think that we should make it legal for someone to be discriminated against in terms of service, hiring/firing, housing, etc. solely because of their race.
(05-17-2021 02:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ].
And when you go down the path of writing laws that define race, what is the alternative but to write laws without consideration to race. That means one would have to be OK with it being legal to discriminate against others due to their race, and I'm not OK with that situation.
In a civil society, I do not think that we should make it legal for someone to be discriminated against in terms of service, hiring/firing, housing, etc. solely because of their race.
Nothing wrong with laws making it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race in hiring, housing, etc., without specifying which races are specially protected and/or targeted.
The fact that you cannot conceive of a simple law that all citizens must follow I think shows us more of the difference between leftist/liberal and right wing.
(05-17-2021 02:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 02:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ].
And when you go down the path of writing laws that define race, what is the alternative but to write laws without consideration to race. That means one would have to be OK with it being legal to discriminate against others due to their race, and I'm not OK with that situation.
In a civil society, I do not think that we should make it legal for someone to be discriminated against in terms of service, hiring/firing, housing, etc. solely because of their race.
Nothing wrong with laws making it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race in hiring, housing, etc., without specifying which races are specially protected and/or targeted.
The fact that you cannot conceive of a simple law that all citizens must follow I think shows us more of the difference between leftist/liberal and right wing.
You must be misunderstanding my post. What simple law can I not conceive of?
![[Image: 0e8b7d2c53195177a326670609fcb7ea.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/8b/7d/0e8b7d2c53195177a326670609fcb7ea.jpg)
![[Image: boomer-with-a-computer.jpg]](https://www.joeydevilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boomer-with-a-computer.jpg)