"Ughr, but you can judge the group if the group's culture conditions a set of behaviors that are negative."

All cultures promote negative behavior. To judge an entire group of people because of that is absurd.

Like i said, it is perfectly normal to discriminate people based on their social status. Just because some of them might be nice people does not mean you should take your chances.

For example there is a .1% chance that someone who dresses like a thug with baggy clothes and chains is going to like me and im going to like them. For that .1% chance its okay to discriminate and dismiss them off soon as you see them. It is not worth the trouble.

Holding someone's race by itself against someone is one of the pure evils of this earth.

Some races get dry skin, sunburn, or certain diseases more easily than others. But the bottom line is, there's a member of every race (lots of them, in fact) stronger than you, faster than you, and smarter than you in many many ways.

I'm not better than anyone else because of the color of my skin or my facial features. And neither are they. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid, ignorant, and probably has a lot of angst over their life.

There are cultural differences distributed unequally among races. This is obvious and not disputable. But the superiority/inferiority of cultural values and norms says nothing of a race because certain races happen to share certain cultures more than others.

> A10 wrote:

> A case for racism can only be made in a society with darwinistic beliefs. If any species offspring varied through decent with modification then it would have to stand that some individuals would be better fit because of their genetics.
Taking into account that skin color is genetic, if you believed in Darwin's Ideas you would fit the definition of racist. For Darwin's ideas to be remotely feasible you would have to believe that different genes make one person and their decendents more fit then another person and their decendents.

A case could not be made for racism in a Christian society.>

You are saying the following.

If Darwinism, then there is genetic variation
If there is genetic variation, then some individuals are better fit than others.
If SIBFTO, then Racism.

Line 3 is false because then you could conclude that I'm a racist if I refuse to reproduce with a woman who was born with one arm because I intended to minimize the likelihood of that gene passing on to my offspring.

What's wrong with line 3 is that it does not consider that racism assumes that humanity can be divided in to sub species or "races" in the same way that a Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear are divided as different species of bears. But unlike these bears who are significantly distinct from each other, humans are not. Furthermore, the traditional racial taxonomy, such as white and black and asian, are inadequate because a member of one "race" may be more genetically similar to a member of another race than one of their own. If the taxonomy had any merit, then that outcome would be impossible. In every comparison, a caucasian would be significantly more similar to another caucasian than an asian. But since this comparison frequently fails, the traditional taxonomy is false. Furthermore, no taxonomy is legit because humans are too genetically similar to be divided in to sub species.

In the woman with one arm example, you could say that I'm prejudiced or selective, but you can't call it racist.

Another problem with your argument is that even if Darwinism is true, that doesn't mean we ought to do anything. An ought does not follow from a fact.

any black in the US justinian... there still is the majority of black people living in africa not the US and in africa they know hip hop.. but not as extreme as in the US.

I would say if you see a middle class person and a lower class person you can say that the lower class is more likely to like hip hop.
and obviously when you think about a lower class american you get an image of a black man in your head...

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > So if culture A conditions terrorism and 90% of its members practice terrorism, I should not judge culture A as savage and barbaric?

Thats not a culture...Thats a terrorist organization. Don't pull numbers out of your [hat]...it makes you look stupid.

Please show me a culture that 90% of its members practice terrorism please.>>

I'm talking about a hypothetical culture. And terrorists are a culture too.

> Schniepel wrote:

> any black in the US justinian... there still is the majority of black people living in africa not the US and in africa they know hip hop.. but not as extreme as in the US.

I would say if you see a middle class person and a lower class person you can say that the lower class is more likely to like hip hop.
and obviously when you think about a lower class american you get an image of a black man in your head...>

You have a point there. Our foreign exchange students (which aren't Somalis, thank goodness) from Africa have been middle class, polite and very civilized.

To be honest I see enough white trash to see a scruffy and unbathed white guy when I think of a lower class person. Though a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites, where I'm from poor whites are much more visible. Moreover, hip hop or some other stupid culture seems to be more prevalent in members of the lower classes, true.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Well, this hypothetical culture could then be condemned. But how could you tell people were in this culture?>

. Well that's a practical problem I'm not qualified to answer.

I've forgotten my point X(.

>>Line 3 is false because then you could conclude that I'm a racist if I refuse to reproduce with a woman who was born with one arm because I intended to minimize the likelihood of that gene passing on to my offspring.<<

...No, that wouldn't be discriminating based upon race, but upon the presence of a defect which likely had contributing genetic factors. I thought you were better educated than this. Could it be more obvious?

>>But I can compare any random black and white person and be well justified in believing that the black person is more likely to be a hip hop generation ahole who I would be better off avoiding.<<

If you are a frail and defenseless human being who can't treat other individuals as individuals, then yes, perhaps you would be safest cowering away from people based upon their culture. Where did the baggy clothes and chains reference go? Now you're talking about race? You would avoid a black man in a suit but not a white guy with baggy clothes and a bandanna? You're talking about culture, not race. If the hip-hop generation is what you discriminate against and you're just not perceptive enough to tell who's in it so you just have to discriminate against all blacks because they have a higher probability of belonging to it, that's just your inadequacy. I guess I wouldn't personally fault you for being slow. It's good to be safe when you know you're not all there.

>>and obviously when you think about a lower class american you get an image of a black man in your head...<<

...No? You're not American, are you? You say "obviously," but it's not true. Fascinating.

> V.Kemp wrote:

<...No, that wouldn't be discriminating based upon race, but upon the presence of a defect which likely had contributing genetic factors. I thought you were better educated than this. Could it be more obvious?>

That was my point, lol.

<If you are a frail and defenseless human being who can't treat other individuals as individuals, then yes, perhaps you would be safest cowering away from people based upon their culture. Where did the baggy clothes and chains reference go? Now you're talking about race? You would avoid a black man in a suit but not a white guy with baggy clothes and a bandanna? You're talking about culture, not race. If the hip-hop generation is what you discriminate against and you're just not perceptive enough to tell who's in it so you just have to discriminate against all blacks because they have a higher probability of belonging to it, that's just your inadequacy. I guess I wouldn't personally fault you for being slow. It's good to be safe when you know you're not all there.>

I am definitely not going to approach those hip hop savages. Middle Class America is a safer place when they're cleaned out of the neighborhoods. Yes I would sooner trust a black who worked as a professional than I would a white who was obviously a whigger. But I spoke in such generality that such specifics are irrelevant. I said any "random black," that means any further specifics that would help identify their cultural background or personality are not to be considered. I was so general that it's like selecting any random black name off of a computer database of black citizens, with nothing else to consider other than that they are black. There is a higher probability that that person is a hip hop generation ahole. The point is that a person with black skin is more likely to be a member of the contemptuous hip hop generation, and at first glance it is sensible to place them in that box unless it's proven otherwise (such as their clothing or a track record of their behavior).

To the point:

1. I am talking about culture.
2. Sometimes members of a certain "race" also have a higher distribution of belonging to a specific culture than other "races."
3. When statistically significant, this information as well as other marks that identify the culture a person may belong to, is useful when deciding to be initially more trusting or vigilant towards someone.
4. That black people have a higher distribution as members of hip hop culture is statistically significant.

> Jesus Chrysler wrote:

What a stupid point to make. First of all such a culture would destroy itself very early on. And second, there's nothing cultural about terrorism. Terrorism is a mechanism to obtain something, but that's as far as it gets.>

I consider a culture as being a set of beliefs, rituals, and behaviors common to a population. Feel free to correct me if you feel I'm wrong.

Racism in itself is generalisation, Deci. Pot, kettle and all that.