Is racism always wrong?
Goodness southern republicans, that's embarrassing....at least turn purple, please.
They all only have a few votes. I think the result would improve with larger sample size.
It was the southern democrats that ran the KKK congressional democraps didn't want to sign the equal rights amendment in the 60's. lincoln was a republicant!
Yes, so is reverse racism.
So not allowing a certain racial demographic to participate in something is not racist?
Kermie buddy, you need to step back into reality.
No, it may be bigoted. But racist is a very distinct term with a distinct definition (that doesn't mean discriminatory or bigoted).
So it's totally cool to say only let white people sit in the front half of a bus
There's no such thing as reverse racism. Totally made up by racist resentful of social progress as a way to stop it. Lol.
wait, so you're saying when [race inserted here] says white people are racist, but then do a complete 360? and make racist remarks is fine with you? what happened to "2 wrongs don't make a right? Because IMO. that only white people are racist is absolute horseshit. EVERYONE is.
Anyone who tells me they never made a racist statement in their life is either lying, fooling themselves or both.
A white power group threatens to bomb an event being hosted by a black church. Would it be racist for the guards to make all white attendants walk through metal detectors?
Replace "racist" with "wrongfully discriminatory."
If I said to a [insert race] person "I believe your people are the most beautiful, strong, intelligent people on earth and I wish everyone were like [insert racial people group]," I seriously doubt they'd cry racism. That's exactly what it is, though
In other words, no.
Again - what???? You serious???
Not if it's based on rational observation.
There lies the problem with the politically correct crowd...u said "rational"
But that's just observing. Not fact. Unless they see 20 million people all at once.
What - Scotty - What????
I find white and Asian women more attractive than black or Latina. That is a racist statement giving one race preference over another but it is not wrong.
Distinguishing differences between races is not racist thats just refusing to be politically correct and calling a spade a spade...racism is when u belief your race is superior to another's and usually involves hatred
Ok I believe Asian women are far superior as spouses because of their cultural and ethnic background. I don't hate anyone for their race but I find some superior to others. It is not wrong to do so
Then that would be a preference since you said you don't hate any specific race
So as long as I don't hate it's not racist. Good to know so if I were to show preference to Latina workers and only hire them it would be just fine good to know.
Why could you not hire only Latina workers?
I believe that I would be accused or racism particularly if I only hire one ethnic group regardless of qualified candidates.
I don't believe there would be any legal grounding for a lawsuit.
And if they were all white instead?
Same. Someone would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not hired because of the color of their skin.
Yes, unless you're a liberal who thinks that morals are subjective and relative. Then racism may or may not be wrong. For instance, racism against white people in the form of affirmative action seems a-ok skippy to them.
Incorrect. I see what you and MilkDud are trying to do. Racism and rape, etc, are always wrong. But not because some supernatural force said so. They're subjective morals because we all created them. But they're still true and always wrong.
If they're subjective then we can all have different opinions.
What makes them always true and always wrong?
We have collectively decided as a society our morals. So they are, often, absolute and yet still subjective. Not every single moral is absolute. But some can be. Even though we came up with them ourselves.
Didn't you and your friends ever come up with your own rules for your neighborhood ball games? They were subjective because you came up with them, not from the official rule book, but everyone still had to follow them. Same idea here.
They're both subjective and absolute. Only you can do do that kermie.
No. We always played "keep the ball away from the gay kid." It was much more fun.
It's all just subjective kermie, so we didn't really do anything wrong after we beat him up. Isn't that right? Maybe legally wrong, not morally wrong.
It's ok as long as we could get away with it. It's not like we were doing anything "really" wrong. After all, such rules are based on some pie-in-the-sky ideal that's purely opinion.
Okie really thinks he is cleaver!
Cleaver? Well I guess I'm in the same boat he is
Kermie, there are plenty of societies around the planet that haven't signed on to you're decree that these things are always wrong. If another society collective says they're right, then how does that work?
It's okay, Kermie.
They all had a tickle fight afterward.
Geee miss cleaver.
Fuck off jerks.
You just accused me of lacking class a little while ago.
HaHa!!! Pot meet kettle
Woah, Kermie! What was that for? I asked you a reasonable question!
Yeah because they are soooo innocent
That was for the bullying comments about tickle fights and teasing gay kids from your compadres, who are now on ignore. Maybe you could give them a hug or something. They seem to need it, the way they take out their insecurities on everyone else.
And sorry, I missed your reasonable question in the midst of that. Sure, some societies don't have the same taboos we do about things. Or they have taboos we don't. Some things could be wrong for us and right for them, and vice versa.
Kermie, you aren't really saying that just because a society collectively decides that rape is ok, that rape suddenly becomes OK there, are you?
Ok well since i want to worship satan and sacrifice animals i think im going to move to south africa then it would be morally acceptable
Think that through. In some countries homosexuality is forbidden on both moral and legal grounds.
Do you honestly believe that homosexuality becomes morally wrong inside the borders of those countries?
For me it's still wrong. For them it's not wrong. It's irrelevant to each of us what the other thinks. The question is then whether I want to impose my beliefs on someone else. Sometimes the answer is yes, I do. Sometimes not.
I believe rape and abusing homosexuals is always wrong. Even if someone else doesn't, that doesn't change whether or not it's wrong. It's still wrong. But still also subjective, obviously, because other people came to another conclusion.
A moral can be both subjective and absolute. Those aren't exclusive.
Kermie, is it possible that those things are actually objective truths, and some people just get it wrong?
Not that they come to different but equally valid conclusions, but that they are flat wrong because certain moral positions are simply true.
How could they be objective? Where would that objectivity come from? Who or what had the authority to decide that?
Kermie, that's called natural law. I'm not making a religious argument. I hope you aren't trying to pigeonhole me into one.
I think you innately understand this, but for some reason you struggle against the obvious truth here. Even in this conversation you said certain things are wrong regardless of whether someone believes they are right....
When you say things like "a moral can be both subjective and absolute" it makes me think that you don't fully understand those terms. Objective and subjective are not compatible concepts- objective truths are absolute- they are the way they are...
...regardless of what the observer believes about them. You can't say a truth is both absolute and subjective. It's a logically impossible claim.
Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I believe *you* seem not to understand the concepts in question. Oh well. You never explained where natural law came from though or what makes it absolute (other than the fact that *we* said so).
Kermie, natural law is something atheists ascribe to. It's just the acknowledgment that nature operates according to observable laws and norms, and that human beings and society, as part of nature, also operate according to observable norms.
And I don't think it's a good idea to accuse me of not understanding the concepts here. You're clearly misusing the concepts of subjective and absolute. That's not my opinion, that's just a fact.
We operate by certain norms because we want to, choose to, or found it evolutionarily advantageous too. Not because of some outside objective force. All the rules we have, we came up with. So necessarily subjective. But can still also be absolute.
Kermie, I'd really like you to take some time to think through how something that is absolute can also be subjective.
Just google the terms. They are mutually exclusive.
I already gave you an example. If you and your friends make up the rules for a game, they are subjective, as you created them yourselves. But they are absolute because no one is allowed to play without following the rules.
Morals are identical.