Isn't this sweet

[jasonzyx]

Please read carefully.


We have told you many times what racism is. It is prejudice against people for the sole reason that they are of a different race.

There is only one human race.
You have adopted the Victorian/ Darwinian theory that the human race is divided into separate races. It is not. That is an old-fashioned outdated idea.
It is scientifically proven that there is no biological basis for that school of thought.
I could post up multiple proofs that your idea that there are different races is outdated and superseded by modern science.
Moreover your idea on which your belief relies is fundamentally racist because it argues that there is a hierarchy of races.

If, as you believe, there is only one human race then, logically and obviously, there can be no such thing as racism.

But there is racism. So either your idea is flawed, you are wrong, or racism does not and cannot exist.

However, there is prejudice against people for other reasons (nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, football teams) which you call racism.

Not sexual orientation, that is a distortion on your part. I suspect a deliberate distortion in an attempt to discredit the argument.
In football teams, possibly, if those football teams have a distinct and different cultural identity, e.g. language or nationality differentiates them.

Therefore you must be using the wrong word, which is another thing that we have we have been telling you all along.

Or your idea of what is racism is is incorrect.
I can prove that your idea is incorrect. But last time I posted the proof in a thread, it was deleted within minutes.

 

[JohnD]

Himmy said that there is only one race, the human race, not EFL.

That is one of the arguments for saying that racism is futile.

However, if DP views Yorkshiremen as a separate and inferior race, his perception leads him down that futile path.

If Tommy Robinson believes that Aryans are intrinsically superior to Asians, his perception leads him down that futile path.

 

[Notch7]

post my proof again that you and EFLImpudence's version of racism is flawed, if you want

That version is the one in the dictionary. So its correct.

Your bizarre version therefore totally wrong.

 

[jasonzyx]

If there was just one race, the human race, the word 'racism' wouldn't even be in the dictionary. There would be no need for the word.

Plenty of other words to describe hatred of people, due to their nationality/appearance/religion etc. I can think of many many fitting names to call people who hate others for such pitiful reasons.


Himmy said that there is only one race, the human race, not EFL.

Please excuse the length of the post. I accept it will go well past many people's concentration span.

Definition of Racism

There are two schools of thought on the definition of Racism.

One school of thought relies on the concept of there being several different races within the human race. It argues that racism can only exist between these different races.

It relies on the Victorian idea, as expounded by Charles Darwin that the human race is divided into different races, and these races are differentiated by characteristics such as skin colour, nose shape, etc.

It also ascribes to the idea that evolution means that there is a hierarchy of races, i.e. that one or more races are superior to others.

This is known as the racial essentialism school of thought, and is of course fundamentally racist.


The other school of thought is predicated on the idea that racism is a socially constructed concept. It recognises that there is only one human race and that there is no hierarchy of races. It recognises the definition of racism to apply between ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.


Now if consider the dictionary definition of racism:

“Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”

It gives us no clue as to whether this definition uses race in the first school of thought, the racial essentialist school, or the socially constructed concept of racism.



If we take another dictionary definition, that of anti-Semitism, “Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”

and apply our two different schools of thought again.

Then the racial essentialist concept cannot agree with that definition, because, in the racial essentialist school of thought, the race “Semites” are a distinct race. In which case the definition of anti-Semitism would be “prejudice against Semites.”, But it is not.


If we consider the socially constructed concept of anti-Semitism, it can be used totally unhindered, stand along with and in parallel, and with total agreement of the dictionary definition.

Therefore the dictionary definitions sees “race” as the socially accepted model of ethnicity, nationality or culture.


Therefore, the dictionary definition of racism, like anti-Semitism, considers prejudice between races as the socially accepted model of race, i.e. ethnicity, nationality or culture.

Therefore “racism” is a socially constructed concept. It cannot mean prejudice between races, with races being used in the narrow sense of the word, because there is only one human race. The Victorian, Darwinian idea of separate races within the human race is outdated, incorrect, and fundamentally racist.

 

[transam]

Never read it but the only conclusion one can come to with ref to himagins favourite subject is


ball cocks

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is a moral philosophical difference.

Animals are raised so that they can be killed.

Animals are killed so that they can be eaten.

Raising pheasants until fully grown, then releasing them so they fly up in the air to be shot has a sole purpose. That purpose is the natural flight decisions of a living animal is providing the human with pleasure, ie its a sport, hobby, pastime.

So you'd rather that they were raised, and then put through a totally unnatural experience of being transported in bulk to an industrial facility to be killed?

The sport is mostly I would say derived from the excitement of a birds direction of flight that the human has no control over, more so than the actual act of killing.

Which is what I've been saying.

The ethics of that process is that a person is choosing to kill an an animal for a single purpose: enjoyment. Therefore a life is being ended for a trivial reason.

So in your world would farmers not be allowed to enjoy rearing animals, which they do for the single purpose: to have the animals killed?

Its perfectly possible to eat a pheasant without the releasing, shooting and retrieving element.
.
.
Raising an animal to be killed and eaten is a very different ethical discussion. There is no excitement or sport involved in the killing. There is still killing involved, but that does not involve allowing a bird to fly off and then shooting it out of the sky.

So you'd rather that they were raised, and then put through a totally unnatural experience of being transported in bulk to an industrial facility to be killed?

One can make the case for the ethics of whether we should eat animals at all or the suffering in the slaughter process, but it is different.

It's only different if you pick on one act in the chain of acts between birth and plate and decide that it must be subject to different rules than all the rest.

Killing animals to reduce numbers is again a different ethical argument.

In your world would you ideally have the people who do that made miserable by the experience? What NHS budget do you think should be set aside to deal with the psychological problems that will arise in people who are made to do a job which they don't enjoy?

And the enjoyment of eating meat is again a clear ethical, moral, philosophical difference from gaining pleasure by shooting a bir das it flies away.

The ethical differences between these is as clear as night and day to me. If you want to conflate the ethics of one with another in order to drive your argument, that is your choice.

Do you eat fish?

 

[jasonzyx]

That version is the one in the dictionary. So its correct.

I totally agree, the dictionary definition is correct.
But the digression arises because those that ascribe to the racial essentialist doctrine believe that the dictionary also ascribes to that theory.

But the dictionary does absolutely not ascribe to that theory when defining antisemitism,
Therefore the racial essentialist argument is flawed, or the dictionary is inconsistent.

Take a choice.

 

[Bodd]

Ladies and Gentlemen the Rat has left the building

 

[EFLImpudence]

Moreover your idea on which your belief relies is fundamentally racist because it argues that there is a hierarchy of races.

It does not. I have never said that one race is superior to another.

But there is racism. So either your idea is flawed, you are wrong, or racism does not and cannot exist.

Or, of course, I am right.

 

[jasonzyx]

It does not. I have never said that one race is superior to another.

The argument that there are different races within the human race is predicated on the Victorian/Darwinian idea.
That idea does espouse that there are a hierarchy of races, one or more being superior.
Therefore anyone who ascribes to that theory is fundamentally racist.

BTW, thanks to the mods for allowing this discussion to remain, so far.

 

[Notch7]

totally agree, the dictionary definition is correct

No you dont.

Why say you do, when you disagree with the dictionary version.

Do make your mind up.

The dictionary says racism is to do with different races. You seem to say there is only one race.

 

[JohnD]

That idea does espouse that there are a hierarchy of races, one or more being superior.
Therefore anyone who ascribes to that theory is fundamentally racist.

Consider the possibility that I meet a person who has that belief. Or that I am describing Cecil Rhodes or Yaxley-Lennon.

Why should I not call him a racist?

I am under no obligation to share his views. But I am entitled to describe them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The argument that there are different races within the human race is predicated on the Victorian/Darwinian idea.
That idea does espouse that there are a hierarchy of races, one or more being superior.
Therefore anyone who ascribes to that theory is fundamentally racist.

Answer this:

What happened to produce a child of mixed race?


What happened on the long walk from Africa to China (and on to the Americas) to make Chinese people different than African people and what do you call that difference?

 

[jasonzyx]

Consider the possibility that I meet a person who has that belief. Or that I am describing Cecil Rhodes or Yaxley-Lennon.

Why should I not call him a racist?

I am under no obligation to share his views. But I am entitled to describe them.

Hmm, I'm a bit confused.
Cecil Rhodes was fundamentally racist. He did believe that there were a hierarchy of different races, I assume.
Therefore he ascribed to the racial essentialist ideology. Therefore he was racist. Why should you not describe him as a racist?
You are under no obligation to share his views.

 

[jasonzyx]

Answer this:

What happened to produce a child of mixed race?

The "race" is used in place of the socially accepted model of "ethnicity".
It means really a child of mixed ethnicity.
Maybe it's an outdated, leftover expression from the Victorian era.

What happened on the long walk from Africa to China (and on to the Americas) to make Chinese people different than African people and what do you call that difference?

Are you suggesting that their 'race' changed? They transformed into a different race?

 

[EddieM]

I dont disagree with them being reared to be killed, I disagree with them being reared to be killed for fun

To say they are killed to be eaten is disingenuous, that is not the primary reason.

If they get hit and fall to the ground, still alive, they may be then retrieved by a dog

If you think it is acceptable to inflict suffering on another animal just for your own enjoyment that is your choice, but not mine.

I don't agree with that statement, shot for fun? hmm... As you may be able to tell I've been on a fair few shoots, the pheasants or partridge etc are definitely shot for eating, furthmore I've experienced and seen wily old country folk physically wince when they've made a bad shot. The "fun" is in the quick clinical despatch.