For discussion: Do liberals injure blacks?

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

There is a difference between race and racism.

Say a mother has 3 children, all with the same father.

The father is black, the mother white.

One child is blond and very fair, very much like the mother and has the highest IQ.

One child has black hair and his skin and features are much like the father and is athletic with the lowest IQ.

One child is a mixture of both, with brown hair and is by all standards average.

Which of the children has greater value in the eyes of the parents?

Quote from spect8or:

This one's for Ricter and other such race-is-a-myth-ers.

Ernst Mayer is a biologist who the site in the hyperlink refers to as "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century".

What does this man have to say on the existence of human races?

"There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as there are no human races.

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals . . . the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact."

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is a difference between race and racism.

Why, good Lord, you're right! Thanks for the brilliant insight.

ZZzz, I posted that because it's trendy among (even highly educated) liberal circles to assert that "there's no such thing as race" or that race is "socially constructed". Just how they can maintain this in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary is beyond me, but maintain they do.

Say a mother has 3 children, all with the same father.

The father is black, the mother white.

One child is blond and very fair, very much like the mother and has the highest IQ.

One child has black hair and his skin and features are much like the father and is athletic with the lowest IQ.

One child is a mixture of both, with brown hair and is by all standards average.

Which of the children has greater value in the eyes of the parents?

For one, such an outcome would be highly unlikely, but let's answer you anyway.

I can't begin to pretend to know by which standards parents might judge the value of their children. Most everyone would claim to 'value' each of them equally (the quotes are there because it's difficult to imagine parents even thinking in such terms).

Obviously you knew this is the answer I would give, so I'm curious just what point you were trying to illustrate. Was it that because the parents of such children wouldn't be able to determine (probably wouldn't even be able to bring themselves to try) which of their children was 'most valuable', that I - or anyone else - should likewise refrain from passing judgement on anyone because of their race? If so, I think that's absurd. I'm not obliged to love everyone equally. Clearly I love my own parents more than I love yours, which is to say, essentially, that I value them more than I value yours. I likewise, in the plainest language, value people of my own race (and races similar to my own) more than I value people of the African race (or races very different to my own). Why? Because I find their company more pleasant. Experience has taught me that, so why I should ignore it? I've explained to you already, if you recall, that I used to have a couple of very close Chinese friends but that I would feel a slight sense of alienation at attending their dinner parties, me being the only European there. And I desrcribed to you how this feeling of alienation was largely absent if I attended dinner parties hosted by Italian or Greek friends. At the end of the day, Italians and Greeks are simply a lot more like me than are Chinese. None of this is to say Chinese are horrible people or that because I don't feel as comfortable around them as around Europeans that they must therefore be persecuted. The bottom line is I simply don't feel as comfortable in the company of large numbers of Chinese as I do in the company of large numbers of Italians or Greeks (or English or Danes or Russians). My Chinese friends obviously feel similarly, which is why they associate mostly with other Chinese, and not with groups of Italians or Greeks. It's all rather elementary stuff, really. It's only modern anti-racist liberals that have to twist themselves into pretzels to avoid such obvious truths that have trouble understanding it.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The point is that like a mother loves her children equally, a society should love all of its citizen equally.

Does that mean that we don't punish guilty and reward performance?

Not at all. It means that we don't judge the value of a human being on the basis of their skin, we don't prejudge people on the basis of their ethnicity, we treat all people with fairness and justice.

Quote from spect8or:

Why, good Lord, you're right! Thanks for the brilliant insight.

ZZzz, I posted that because it's trendy among (even highly educated) liberal circles to assert that "there's no such thing as race" or that race is "socially constructed". Just how they can maintain this in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary is beyond me, but maintain they do.



For one, such an outcome would be highly unlikely, but let's answer you anyway.

I can't begin to pretend to know by which standards parents might judge the value of their children. Most everyone would claim to 'value' each of them equally (the quotes are there because it's difficult to imagine parents even thinking in such terms).

Obviously you knew this is the answer I would give, so I'm curious just what point you were trying to illustrate. Was it that because the parents of such children wouldn't be able to determine (probably wouldn't even be able to bring themselves to try) which of their children was 'most valuable', that I - or anyone else - should likewise refrain from passing judgement on anyone because of their race? If so, I think that's absurd. I'm not obliged to love everyone equally. Clearly I love my own parents more than I love yours, which is to say, essentially, that I value them more than I value yours. I likewise, in the plainest language, value people of my own race (and races similar to my own) more than I value people of the African race (or races very different to my own). Why? Because I find their company more pleasant. Experience has taught me that, so why I should ignore it? I've explained to you already, if you recall, that I used to have a couple of very close Chinese friends but that I would feel a slight sense of alienation at attending their dinner parties, me being the only European there. And I desrcribed to you how this feeling of alienation was largely absent if I attended dinner parties hosted by Italian or Greek friends. At the end of the day, Italians and Greeks are simply a lot more like me than are Chinese. None of this is to say Chinese are horrible people or that because I don't feel as comfortable around them as around Europeans that they must therefore be persecuted. The bottom line is I simply don't feel as comfortable in the company of large numbers of Chinese as I do in the company of large numbers of Italians or Greeks (or English or Danes or Russians). My Chinese friends obviously feel similarly, which is why they associate mostly with other Chinese, and not with groups of Italians or Greeks. It's all rather elementary stuff, really. It's only modern anti-racist liberals that have to twist themselves into pretzels to avoid such obvious truths that have trouble understanding it.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The point is that like a mother loves her children equally, a society should love all of its citizen equally.

I sincerely consider that a touching sentiment. But logically, the latter simply doesn't necessarily follow from the former.

In specific terms, loving 'all of its citizens equally' translates to the blindness of the law and, essentially, nothing more than that (that I can think of). How on earth would it be even theoretically possible for everyone (ie 'society', which is just a collection of individuals) to love everyone else equally? Imagine I was a member of your society, would you love me (finding me as repugnant as you do) as much as you loved your brother or son?

[/quote] It means that we don't judge the value of a human being on the basis of their skin, we don't prejudge people on the basis of their ethnicity, we treat all people with fairness and justice. [/QUOTE]

It's entirely possible to be fair and just and prejudge people on the basis of their ethnicity all at the same time. To deny this is to deny the basis on which people have always based their associations.

If I play basketball but dislike badminton, it's only natural that, all things being equal, I would prefer the company of basketballers to badminton players. If I'm more attracted to brunettes than blondes, it's only natural that, all things being equal, I'd be more likely to marry a brunette. If I'm a Republican, it's only natural that I'd be more likely to have more Republican than Democrat friends. A few moments thought would yield dozens more examples. If I feel more comfortable around Europeans, then why wouldn't I use a person's ethnicity to evaluate their compatibility with me? Even the most vehemently anti-racist whites are scarcely any different to me in this respect; afterall, how many black friends do they have? (And why is that question always such a one-way street? Why is it always whites' fault and not blacks'?)

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from spect8or:

I sincerely consider that a touching sentiment. But logically, the latter simply doesn't necessarily follow from the former.

In specific terms, loving 'all of its citizens equally' translates to the blindness of the law and, essentially, nothing more than that (that I can think of). How on earth would it be even theoretically possible for everyone (ie 'society', which is just a collection of individuals) to love everyone else equally? Imagine I was a member of your society, would you love me (finding me as repugnant as you do) as much as you loved your brother or son?

Read the words of Jesus Christ, Kant, King, Gandhi, etc.

I find your thinking and behavior repugnant, I don't find your soul repugnant.

It's entirely possible to be fair and just and prejudge people on the basis of their ethnicity all at the same time. To deny this is to deny the basis on which people have always based their associations.

No, it isn't.

Judgment on the basis of ethnicity is bigotry.

If I play basketball but dislike badminton, it's only natural that, all things being equal, I would prefer the company of basketballers to badminton players.

Nonsense. Badminton and basketball are sports played by men and women, they are not men and women.

To judge a basketball player before meeting and getting to know them as not "likeable" is prejudice and bigotry in action.

If I'm more attracted to brunettes than blondes, it's only natural that, all things being equal, I'd be more likely to marry a brunette.

Choosing a brunette doesn't require rejecting a blonde.

If I'm a Republican, it's only natural that I'd be more likely to have more Republican than Democrat friends.

Narrow minded people are like that. Well rounded open minded people have friends from all political persuasions.

A few moments thought would yield dozens more examples.

Your examples are mostly on the basis of choice of activity and thinking, not race or ethnicity.

None of those choices require denegrating the non chosen as "inferior."

If I feel more comfortable around Europeans, then why wouldn't I use a person's ethnicity to evaluate their compatibility with me?

That is what bigots and racists do.

Even the most vehemently anti-racist whites are scarcely any different to me in this respect.

Incorrect.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



I find your thinking and behavior repugnant, I don't find your soul repugnant.

That's largely how I feel about blacks and Muslims. So we agree then.

It's entirely possible to be fair and just and prejudge people on the basis of their ethnicity all at the same time. To deny this is to deny the basis on which people have always based their associations.

No, it isn't.

Judgment on the basis of ethnicity is bigotry.

Then it's possible for 'bigots' to be fair and just, is all that is saying.

To judge a basketball player before meeting and getting to know them as not "likeable" is prejudice and bigotry in action.

Okay, so what? I literally don't have time to be friends with everyone, so I require time saving tactics. Come on man, this is plain common sense. An opera fanatic would be quite unlikely to the best of pals with a football fanatic. So what if the opera fanatic studiously avoids football fans? They are just as unlikely to want to be friends with him, either.

This might sound a little 'simplistic' to you, but isn't this essentially the process that takes place while 'getting to know you' at a dinner party, for example? You know, guy meets girl, they start talking, where do you live, where did you go to school, what did you study, what music do you like etc etc. All this is an effort to determine compatibility. In fact, determining compatbility is precisely what 'getting to know you' is. If a girl rejects a guy, she does so because in the process of 'getting to know' him he failed to meet her criteria; it is absurd then to claim she is a 'bigot' because she rejecting him without getting to know him, because she, in fact, rejected him precisely because she got to know him.

If I'm more attracted to brunettes than blondes, it's only natural that, all things being equal, I'd be more likely to marry a brunette.

Choosing a brunette doesn't require rejecting a blonde.

Yes it is does, unless you mean I should have more than one partner.

If I'm a Republican, it's only natural that I'd be more likely to have more Republican than Democrat friends.

Narrow minded people are like that. Well rounded open minded people have friends from all political persuasions.

I said 'more likely'.

Anyway, would you be my friend? My view, afterall, constitute a 'political persuasion' (if not a particularly popular one). In fact, by your own criteria, you would have to admit that yes, you and I could be friends, or else be judged a bigot.

A few moments thought would yield dozens more examples.

Your examples are mostly on the basis of choice of activity and thinking, not race or ethnicity.

None of those choices require denegrating the non chosen as "inferior."

Nowhere am I required to denigrate the non-chosen as 'inferior'. Nowhere. That is, in fact, your own prejudice jumping to conclusions.

If I am at a multiracial party and I focus my efforts on meeting and associating with whites, how in the world does that require me to denigrate blacks as inferior?

Does a female rejecting your offer to join you for a coffee require her to 'denigrate' you? Of course not. A simple 'no thanks' would suffice. And that is just as true if she rejected me for racial reasons as if she did because of bad body odor or she didn't like the cut of my jeans. There's no requirement for her to say, "You?! I wouldn't go out with a [....] like you if my life depended on it!"

If I feel more comfortable around Europeans, then why wouldn't I use a person's ethnicity to evaluate their compatibility with me?

That is what bigots and racists do.

So my happiness counts for nothing, then? Interesting.

Even the most vehemently anti-racist whites are scarcely any different to me in this respect.

Incorrect.

Okay, so how many black or hispanic friends do you have?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from spect8or:

That's largely how I feel about blacks and Muslims. So we agree then.

No we don't. My thinking applies to your known behavior, your thinking applies to anyone who is Muslim or black, not knowing their behavior.

That's what makes you a racist bigot.



Then it's possible for 'bigots' to be fair and just, is all that is saying.

Not while practicing bigotry.

Okay, so what? I literally don't have time to be friends with everyone, so I require time saving tactics. Come on man, this is plain common sense. An opera fanatic would be quite unlikely to the best of pals with a football fanatic. So what if the opera fanatic studiously avoids football fans? They are just as unlikely to want to be friends with him, either.

Not having time is not the same as close minded bigotry and racism.

This might sound a little 'simplistic' to you, but isn't this essentially the process that takes place while 'getting to know you' at a dinner party, for example? You know, guy meets girl, they start talking, where do you live, where did you go to school, what did you study, what music do you like etc etc. All this is an effort to determine compatibility. In fact, determining compatibility is precisely what 'getting to know you' is. If a girl rejects a guy, she does so because in the process of 'getting to know' him he failed to meet her criteria; it is absurd then to claim she is a 'bigot' because she rejecting him without getting to know him, because she, in fact, rejected him precisely because she got to know him.

You are getting to know people individually in your example in order to make an evaluation, bigots and racist don't do that, they prejudge and evaluate on the basis of race and ethnicity.

Yes it is does, unless you mean I should have more than one partner.

I don't care if you have no or many partners.

Anyway, would you be my friend? My view, afterall, constitute a 'political persuasion' (if not a particularly popular one). In fact, by your own criteria, you would have to admit that yes, you and I could be friends, or else be judged a bigot.

Having gotten to know you on the basis of the comments here, I would not have an interest in your "friendship."

Nowhere am I required to denigrate the non-chosen as 'inferior'. Nowhere. That is, in fact, your own prejudice jumping to conclusions.

Getting to know requires an open mind.

Your bigotry and racism are the antithesis of that.

If I am at a multiracial party and I focus my efforts on meeting and associating with whites, how in the world does that require me to denigrate blacks as inferior?

There would be no reason for a blind person to evaluate a person shaking the hand of a black or white person, he would need to get to know them.

That you don't want to get to know others of different races or ethnicity shows your the true color of your racist bigoted thinking.

Does a female rejecting your offer to join you for a coffee require her to 'denigrate' you?

If she doesn't know me, she makes a decision, which is on surface values. Very similar to racist and bigots in their own way.

She chooses relationships of surface values, the way a racist bigot like you chooses friends on the basis of surface values.

Okay, so how many black or hispanic friends do you have?

Irrelevant question, essentially ad hominem in class.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is a difference between race and racism.

Say a mother has 3 children, all with the same father.

The father is black, the mother white.

One child is blond and very fair, very much like the mother and has the highest IQ.

One child has black hair and his skin and features are much like the father and is athletic with the lowest IQ.

One child is a mixture of both, with brown hair and is by all standards average.

Which of the children has greater value in the eyes of the parents?

This is a racist example. It implies a connection between skin color and IQ.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This is a racist example. It implies a connection between skin color and IQ.

Well there is presicely such a correlation. Sure, it's 'racist', but that makes it no less true.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



If I am at a multiracial party and I focus my efforts on meeting and associating with whites, how in the world does that require me to denigrate blacks as inferior?

There would be no reason for a blind person to evaluate a person shaking the hand of a black or white person, he would need to get to know them.

That you don't want to get to know others of different races or ethnicity shows your the true color of your racist bigoted thinking.

Do you agree, though, that my 'racist bigoted thinking' in no way requires denigrating anybody?

Does a female rejecting your offer to join you for a coffee require her to 'denigrate' you?

If she doesn't know me, she makes a decision, which is on surface values. Very similar to racist and bigots in their own way.

She chooses relationships of surface values, the way a racist bigot like you chooses friends on the basis of surface values.

This quite interesting. I have for quite a while thought liberals' views would corner them into stating this.

In this view, 99.9% of all females qualify as 'bigots'. A sentiment fascinating as the utter disregard for biological reality is breathtaking.

Okay, so how many black or hispanic friends do you have?

Irrelevant question, essentially ad hominem in class.

It's entirely relevant. You profess to love blacks as much as you do whites, so it's natural to imagine that if any white could manage to make a black friend or two it would be you. If you have failed, what hope for anyone else? Might that not suggest that the view of reality I have submitted is rather accurate? That as much as we might wail about 'racism' and 'bigotry', it's entirely natural to prefer people who are racially closer?