"Unthinking racism"

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

I asked for an A-U-T-H-O-R-T-Y. Everybody gives me an opinion. Truly, I want to get to the bottom of this: W-H-O said racism is bad? and W-H-E-R-E is this found?

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

That enough authority for ya?

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

If homosexuality is not wrong, then neither is racism.

Racism is an act of discrimination against another human, that can cause pain and anguish to that person, without reason or justification. Comparing racism to homosexuality is beyond illogical.

It is like saying if sex before marriage is not wrong then neither is rape.

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

Whose's morality? And who teaches this?

The UN Declartion of Human Rights, the EU Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, English law, Irish Law, all European countries, Austrialian law, scientific theory, Chrisitianity, Judaism, Islam, most other major religions, communism, social democracy etc etc etc

My question to you is what rock have you been living under for the last 500 years that you don't know of any "authority" (what do you even actually mean by that?) that says discrimination and specifically racism, is bad.

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

I didn't say anything about killing anybody but Mr. bonkey takes it upon himself to put words in my mouth.

Heheheh.

You took it upon yourself to argue that because somethign is done by other species in the natural world, then suerly it is not an evil, but rather a perfectly normal act. Indeed, you went further to suggest (although only on a tangentially related note) that to deny such natural occurrnces would be the evil.

I simply supplied you with another natural occurrence. Now, this presents us with two options:

1) Your logic concludes that this is not evil, based on the argument you presented

or

2) Your argument doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

By claiming that applying an alternate action to your basic premise is putting words in yoru mouth, I think we can safely conclude that you have gone for option 2.

Thank you for playing. Try again.

jc

Eoghan-psych

mrhankey88 wrote:

Lets call them 'category b' irish. They are just different. Its this group - immigrants, non-whites, non-catholics, people who have mixed parents/grandparents, born in another country, come from protestant ancestory etc, these people today are the most likely to disregard our counrtys history, dont care about a united ireland, want the floodgates of refugees to come in, think england is a better country this ours, poke fun at rural ireland and knock our country when it gives them so much.. The vast,vast, majority of the things ive mentioned come from 'categoty b' irish. The ones that dont ive havent got a real problem with, its the ones that DO.

Hmm, seems like 95% of the population are "Cat B". Remember the GFA? 95% voted 'yes' in that referendum, which officially removed the territorial claims to the six counties.

Rural Ireland *deserves* to have fun poked at it. Ever been there? Having grown up in rural Ireland I can safely say that fun poking is warranted.

The notion that Ireland should not be "knocked" is simply ludicrous. You sound like the right wing idiots currently running the US. It is a definite sign of insecurity if one cannot examine the weaknesses of one's own country.

In many ways England *is* better than Ireland - the NHS for example. In many ways it is worse - our education system is better, for example. Well, in many ways it is, in some it isn't - I had to move to the UK for postgrad study as the funding wasn't available back home.

As for refugees - need I point out the *millions* of Irish refugees who have left Ireland over the years? Really? You seem to be disregarding a *very* significant aspect of our history.

Eoghan-psych

WHEELER4 wrote:

Well, I like to jump into this matter and present ideas not presented here in the argument of racism.

You know there is an Old American saying, "Birds of a feather flock together". This saying is also in Classical literature like Plato's Republic and in Aristotle's Politics. This should be self-evident in the realm of nature. This is a point that many seem to overlook. Aren't we not drawn to our own kind? That saying is also encapsulated in the Bible.

I am an old farmhand. Ducks and Geese are both fowl but they don't take to each other. Horses and cows don't mix very well either. I worked in a Diary Barn in Holland, where this farmer kept a mutated cow. All the rest picked on it. Racism? It is alive and well in the natural world. Even colonies of sea anonomies clash over territory.

Racism is not evil. Never was nor is it morally wrong. I propose that it is evil and morally wrong not to have it. What is missing in this debate is the Greek philosophical principle of the Golden Mean.

Not to have racism is morally wrong and to have too much, that leads one to break a moral law, is also wrong.

Do brown cows get along with black cows?

How about curly haired dogs with long haired?

Inter-species conflict is no more akin to racism than the Sun is akin to a real newspaper. Humans constitute a single species group - racism is a within-species problem, not an inter-species one.

But thanks for misrepresenting the situation to absolve yourself - it was very helpful.

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

And who teaches this?

Why does it matter?

You appear to be arguing that one cannot hold a belief unless one can quote chapter and verse of some definitive source where one learned this belief. This then begs the question - where did the belief originally come from. Someone had to have initially formalised the belief in the absence of a previous authority. How can they have validly done this, but we cannot?

For us to be able to accept a source of teaching as valid, we must also automatically accept the entire concept of reaching one's own conclusions frmo a variety of influences rather than being told how to think.

I find it priceless that you refer to the concepts here as groupthink, because no-one can/will tell you who's words and thoughts they're parroting. If indeed it is groupthink, I'll still take it any day over brainless acceptance and repetition of someone else's decision.

Whose's morality

My morality is my own, thank you very much. Anyone who believes they can (or should) live someone else's moral code is kidding themselves.

jc

Eoghan-psych

Redleslie2 wrote:

No I'm not, I just hate greeks for the reasons I mentioned. So is racism uncivil?

Ouch - he *really* should have seen that coming.

But that's the thing with that sort of person - "it's ok if *I* do it".

carpocrates

There's an ad on tv at the moment for new magnums. (quite a pretentious one at that, though they look nice, ahem) which at one point features a black man whispering into the ear of a white woman. Obviously, this particular casting was purely to highlight the contrast between their colouring for the screen (it's an ad about sensualism). To this end, you could say that both of them were hired only for their colouring. Because this culture, still, for better or worse, is predominantly white, it's impossible not to think of the black man as the 'other' part of the double act, if you get what I mean. This, I think, might be close to what the original poster was talking about.

Race is still even now an incredibly tricky issue and it's inevitable that people see the differences between another race and themselves. What the first poster was speaking of, 'unthinking racism' or some kind of non-malicious comment (my dad is full of them, despite being a real humanitarian who campaigned against apartheid like nobody else I've met), will likely dwindle out in the next two or so generations. Older generations still, on the whole, aren't used to racial mixing. This has, eventually, to pass. When you think it's only been 45 odd years since the civil rights movement in the states and only 30 since race riots in Britain, those generations are still around and have more been dragged into the light than found it themselves.

In the end, I think everything depends on context. I have friends of different races and I slag them off mercilessly about their race, as they do me, but the context is one of friendship. There's a profound difference if I ask about arranged marriages from ignorance, want of something to say, genuine curiosity, taking the p1ss or sharing a joke. Plus, it's a very ignorant perspective to think there aren't as many small-minded, petty and easily offended people in other races as there are caucasians.

As for saying one race is different to another and each tends toward their own. It's true, I think, the way each person tends toward their own food or their own pastimes, but what a gift it is to be able to open up and meet the difference.

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

The statement is "Racism is evil". Racism is a human activity and then a qualification is placed on it; i.e. that it is wrong. That is "morality".

Can this be an established fact that what this thread is about is that "racism is evil" is an established morality.

Whose's morality? And who teaches this?

Again, no answers are forthcoming.

Now, that’s not true. I’ve repeatedly pointed out at least one reason that it is an immoral action and you have repeatedly failed to address this. I’ve also added sources to support this view, yet you have also apparently ignored them.

Now you can put your hands over your ears and pretend that you’ve received no response, but that would be all it is - denial.

If I take it that homosexuality is not wrong. If you walk up to a liberal and say that homosexuality is wrong, the Liberal says, "you can't push your morality on others.

The next day, The liberal goes to people and says that "Racism is wrong" and then legislates that morality. All European countries have laws against "racism".

If homosexuality is not wrong, then neither is racism.

That’s a simplistic comparison. Either homosexuality or racism are social or antisocial based upon how they affect others, directly or indirectly. If they are seen to have a significant detrimental or antisocial effect (such as the hate and violence that racism indirectly promotes) then is the duty of Society to impose its morality for the greater good.

And while homosexuality may carry a significant detrimental or antisocial effect you’ve not demonstrated it here, you have simply assumed it (and just because Leviticus 16 says it is, doesn’t make it so in reasoned debate).

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

and just because Leviticus 16 says it is, doesn’t make it so in reasoned debate.

Reminds me of something I read on internet once ...

Questioner - Why do you believe there is a God?
Christian - Because the Bible tells me so
Questioner - So why do you believe the bible?
Christian - Because it is the word of God

.. and round and round we go ...


Very much doubt that was an actual interview (though you never know) but it does kinda show the problems putting the bible forward as a source of information

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Very much doubt that was an actual interview (though you never know) but it does kinda show the problems putting the bible forward as a source of information

It's actually down to the axiomatic nature of logic. As all logic begins from an assumption, if that assumption is false then any conclusions that are deduced from it will be equally false if logically arrived at. Faith is by definition an extreme assumption and if one accepted it then his reasoning may well make perfect and reasonable sense. But only if they are based upon a correct assumption - something less likely in a leap of faith than in your average, more conservative, humanistic axiom.

This is why religiously arrived axioms are generally a bad idea in reasoned debate.

WHEELER4

Wicknight wrote:

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Here is what I am looking for. Now, we have gotten somewhere. Mr. Wicknight quotes from a United Nations document!! A United Nations document is now an authority on morality.

The Bible is Old school. The Classics are DWEMs. but a United Nations document is ....The Gospel truth!!

Now I see a Marxist organization is now an authority on what is right and wrong. I thought Marx and Lenin both said, that they have no morality?!?!

And Corinthian's argument is that morality is based around if "it hurts" another yet liberals condone and promote abortion. Abortion doesn't "hurt". It is funny to see liberals say homosexuality is alright. Can't tell another human being what to do. Then they say homosexuality is okay because it "doesn't hurt anybody" and then turn around and condone abortion. Does the fetus "feel" pain?

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

A United Nations document is now an authority on morality.

Considering that its a moral, aspirational document which has been ratified by the vast majority of nations on the planet - in effect having a "subscriber base" larger than any single religion or philosophical perspective....

Yes. A UN Document is indeed an authority on morality.

The Bible is Old school.

Glad you admit it....although I'm pretty sure it does contain a passage saying that all men are created equal as well, while noticeably missing the bit where God tells us "those darkies need to be kept in tehir inferior place".

I thought Marx and Lenin both said, that they have no morality?!?!

They may not have had any. This has absolutely nothing to do with organisations which may (or may not) have adopted some of their principles.

Again you're failing the "logical analysis" test....but I'm not really surprised. I'm mostly-convinced you're doing so deliberately.

jc

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

Now I see a Marxist organization is now an authority on what is right and wrong. I thought Marx and Lenin both said, that they have no morality?!?!

nice troll :rolleyes:

WHEELER4

Well, what a surprise. God is not an authority but a UN document is. That is pretty clear.

And morality is based on "The People" voting on it and ratifying it.

You refuse the authority of God and elevate the Herd in its place.

Now, that is logical. The Herd is God.

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

The Bible is Old school. The Classics are DWEMs. but a United Nations document is ....The Gospel truth!!

I just noticed your sig says you are from the USA. Maybe you should read the first line of the second paragraph of your The Declaration of Independence if you are looking for a document of authority against racism. Or was the USA founded by a bunch of Marxist immorals too :rolleyes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

Well, what a surprise. God is not an authority but a UN document is. That is pretty clear.

Well if by "God" you mean Jesus, then Jesus and the UN agree on this subject, that racism and discrimination is wrong. Or is Jesus now a godless Marxist immoral? :rolleyes:

Like I said, nice troll

Eoghan-psych

WHEELER4 wrote:

Well, what a surprise. God is not an authority but a UN document is. That is pretty clear.

And morality is based on "The People" voting on it and ratifying it.

You refuse the authority of God and elevate the Herd in its place.

Now, that is logical. The Herd is God.

The UN exists. We can readily and irrefutably demonstrate the existence of the UN.

The UN charters of rights exist. We can readily and irrefutably demonstrate that these charters are the direct product of the UN.

The UN charters of rights have been ratified by more people around the world than any other set of sociopolitical, philosophical or religious ideas. This too is readily and irrefutably demonstrable.

The only demonstrable authority for moral judgement in this world is *us* - the humans that morality applies to.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of *any* god? No? Then your argument has just become an ex-argument. Deceased.

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

Here is what I am looking for. Now, we have gotten somewhere. Mr. Wicknight quotes from a United Nations document!! A United Nations document is now an authority on morality.

The Bible is Old school. The Classics are DWEMs. but a United Nations document is ....The Gospel truth!!

The United Nations document is at least more current and does not rely on a leap of faith. After all, would you prescribe medicine to a patient based on a six thousand year old manuscript?

I’ve also quoted both a recent scientific study and Voltaire, but you seem to have ignored this. Feel free to respond.

Now I see a Marxist organization is now an authority on what is right and wrong. I thought Marx and Lenin both said, that they have no morality?!?!

The United Nations is hardly Marxist. If it is, please feel free to present evidence. You’re beginning to sound like the mirror image of those extreme left wing groups that will accuse anything even slightly right of them is Fascist.

And AFAIR, Marxism would reject what it would call bourgeois morality, but that is not the same thing as saying that it rejects the concept of morality. And again, if I’m wrong, please feel free to present evidence.

And Corinthian's argument is that morality is based around if "it hurts" another yet liberals condone and promote abortion. Abortion doesn't "hurt". It is funny to see liberals say homosexuality is alright. Can't tell another human being what to do. Then they say homosexuality is okay because it "doesn't hurt anybody" and then turn around and condone abortion. Does the fetus "feel" pain?

Actually my argument was that morality is based upon whether something has a positive or negative, social or anti-social affect on Society. I never said anything about people getting hurt, only the greater good.

And I really have no idea where you got the notion that I’m a liberal. You’re actually making some pretty big assumptions about my opinions on either homosexuality or abortion.

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

You refuse the authority of God and elevate the Herd in its place.

You assume God is the authority.

And while your faith is endearing, it is also all too often the boast of a man too lazy to investigate.

WHEELER4

Wicknight wrote:

I just noticed your sig says you are from the USA. Maybe you should read the first line of the second paragraph of your The Declaration of Independence if you are looking for a document of authority against racism. Or was the USA founded by a bunch of Marxist immorals too :rolleyes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

;

You are exactly right. Thomas Jefferson was a humanist. Classical republicanism gave birth to Liberalism and Liberalism (which is the humanist current) gave birth to communism.

See, I know the UN was a Marxist organization. It's ideals, its philosophy all comes from Karl Marx. There is a good book out there by Charles Kiang One World where he traces "one worldism" from Karl Marx. Karl Marx ended his manifesto with "All the workers of the world unite".

See all this "blather" is a smokescreen for what is really going on. Corinthian, Wicknight and others. You don't fool me.

One World is the goal of Socialism. Therefore, in order to promote this, you must teach that "Racism is evil". John Spargo's book, Elements of Socialism, of 1912, points that the goal of marxism and socialism is one world.

You are all just Marxists promoting your marxist sociology. "Racism as evil" is marxist "morality".

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

You are exactly right. Thomas Jefferson was a humanist. Classical republicanism gave birth to Liberalism and Liberalism (which is the humanist current) gave birth to communism.

It also gave birth to Fascism and National Socialism in the same way as Socialism and Communism.

See, I know the UN was a Marxist organization. It's ideals, its philosophy all comes from Karl Marx. There is a good book out there by Charles Kiang One World where he traces "one worldism" from Karl Marx. Karl Marx ended his manifesto with "All the workers of the world unite".

Does this mean that George Bush Sr, the great advocate of the New World Order, is a Marxist? Seriously, where does the aim of World unification and the aim of unification of one class suddenly become the same thing? What a seriously pedestrian parallel.

See all this "blather" is a smokescreen for what is really going on. Corinthian, Wicknight and others. You don't fool me.

All this blather is called debate, which you are refusing to engage in.

One World is the goal of Socialism. Therefore, in order to promote this, you must teach that "Racism is evil". John Spargo's book, Elements of Socialism, of 1912, points that the goal of marxism and socialism is one world.

One World under a single proletarian class. Let me know how the UN is doing that. If you are going to exposé such theories, please know what you’re discussing first.

You are all just Marxists promoting your marxist sociology. "Racism as evil" is marxist "morality".

And all you’re doing is ranting various unrelated conspiracy theories. You rant, people point out that you’re factually in error; you ignore what’s said and continue ranting.

As I’ve already said previously, you’re now beginning to sound just like your average Marxist who will turn around and label you a Fascist should you disagree with him - only in reverse.

You would do well to listen to what Nietzsche said about doing “battle with monsters”.

Eoghan-psych

WHEELER4 wrote:

;
You are all just Marxists promoting your marxist sociology. "Racism as evil" is marxist "morality".

What? What? What?

Take the tinfoil beanie off for a minute.

The very foundation of the USA is that all humanity is equal, and deserves to be treated as such. The stated authority upon which that aim is derived is that of the people.

According to you, the pursuance of this ethic is a marxist conspiracy.

Please explain how the founding fathers could be engaged in a marxist conspiracy 40 years before Marx was born. I'd love to hear your explanation.

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

One World is the goal of Socialism. Therefore, in order to promote this, you must teach that "Racism is evil".

Ok now I know you are trolling :rolleyes:

That logic is right up there with the South Park Underpants gnomes

Phase One: Collect underpants.
Phase Two: ???
Phase Three: Profit.

Phase One: Tell people discrimination is bad
Phase Two: ???
Phase Three: Take over the world

Ummmm ... think I will start sleeping with shoot gun under bed :rolleyes:

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

You refuse the authority of God;

No. I refuse what is claimed to be the word of god as written down by man to be the ultimate authority. The evidence of more than one religion shows that even should there be only one god, we as a species sure as sh1t can't figure out which one it is, so its a bit farcical to be arbitrarily deciding one is omnipotent, the others are fictional, and then going on to decide that what someone wrote down as what someone else said was the word of god is, in fact, the unadulterated and unquestionable truth about morality.

You are all just Marxists promoting your marxist sociology

And you, sir, are either a troll, or a fundamentalist promoting your own particular breed of intolerance.

Hardly a high moral ground to be casting aspersions from.

jc

WHEELER4

All men are created in equal in the spiritual realm but in the physical realm we have diversity don't we? How can we have diversity when we are all equal? That is an oxymoron. Physically handicapped people are not equal to me because I am not physically handicapped.

Aren't there differences among the human race? If there is a difference, then it isn't equal---DUHHHH.

"Equality" is a "mathematical" term. There are only two verbs that precede the word equal; that is the word "is" and the verb "to make". If it isn't equal, it must be "made" equal. That is where Facism and Communism both the sons and daughters of Socialism. That is right the Founding Fathers, based in a Protestant millilieau did preach equality, to bad they didn't see the fruits of their philosophy. Well, Thomas Jefferson did, he said, "The yeomen of America are not the Canaille of Paris". Sounds like nature disabused him of his misguided ill-informed opinions. Sounds like true equality that statement.

You reject God and then set yourself up as one. All this "Racism is evil" is just your stupid opinion. It has no weight and is a bunch of hooey. I don't have to listen to it just like you don't have to listen to God. If you attack the word of God, what makes anything you say any better? Absolutely nothing.

Corinthian is absolutely right. Liberalism and Humanism gave birth to Fascism. The DAP party's platform in Austro-Hungary, the Mother of the German NSDAP, called itself "liberal".

Shabadu

OK Wheeler, you've caught us. C'mon guys, we better fess up to being 'evil' socialists out to spread our destructive message of love, respect and tolerance in order to turn the world into a massive naked atheist ammoral orgy so we can all get the jollies we truly desire.

Men are different to women, does that mean we're not 'equal' either. Difference and Equality are not mutually exclusive.

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

All men are created in equal in the spiritual realm but in the physical realm we have diversity don't we?

Again you make assumptions that there is a spiritual realm.

How can we have diversity when we are all equal? That is an oxymoron. Physically handicapped people are not equal to me because I am not physically handicapped.

Perhaps all men are not created equal, but that is not to say that race is a reliable meter to judge them by. After all, were I to judge you, I would probably make an educated guess that you are my inferior, but simply on a basis of social class.

You reject God and then set yourself up as one. All this "Racism is evil" is just your stupid opinion. It has no weight and is a bunch of hooey. I don't have to listen to it just like you don't have to listen to God. If you attack the word of God, what makes anything you say any better? Absolutely nothing.

Except that you are hiding behind what you believe to be the Word of God to justify your prejudices without going to the trouble of working out the logic for yourself. At least the ‘bunch of hooey’ (what a quaint term) posed towards you has be deduced.

But you’re right; you don’t have to listen to any of it. You can place your hands over your ears and hum loudly. That way you will never err.

Corinthian is absolutely right. Liberalism and Humanism gave birth to Fascism. The DAP party's platform in Austro-Hungary, the Mother of the German NSDAP, called itself "liberal".

And what exactly is your point? First you were accusing liberalism of spawning communism, now you’re conceding that it’s spawned multiple ideologies in reality - invalidating your first point. I recommend you remain consistent.

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

"Equality" is a "mathematical" term.

Yes indeed. So is inequality.

They both have meanings outside mathematics too, so whats your point?

jc