About rightful racism as opposed to hating a race just because of racial differences

[flacaltenn]

What do you mean myth? "I" like it & that's the important part. Myth to whom? Someone other than me? Irrelevant. Also, just like blonde is the popular hair color, even a lot of Caucasians fancy that "myth".

Why do you think "western beauty" (whateverthefuck that is) is Caucasian? That's a myth. Western concepts of beauty --- whether it's a face or a work of art -- don't discriminate by race.. UNLESS you're a racist.

 

[flacaltenn]

I LOVE that guy.. If he was an Uber driver -- I'd ask for him again..

 

[northpolarbear]

That was my point. Dismissing "ANY" race except Caucasian is not racist (aside from being legitimate & rightful "anyway"). It is simply a preference. What are you, playing with words? You are saying "the Western ideal of beauty" doesn't refer to Caucasians? What do you think the "Western" refers to? Native Americans or Arabs?

There's a reference to Western Ideal of Beauty. Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Completely Caucasian by any era.

Uh, your preference is not my preference. I shouldn't have to match with anyone. I just like what I like.

 

[flacaltenn]

That was my point. Dismissing "ANY" race except Caucasian is not racist (aside from being legitimate & rightful "anyway"). It is simply a preference. What are you, playing with words? You are saying "the Western ideal of beauty" doesn't refer to Caucasians? What do you think the "Western" refers to? Native Americans or Arabs?

There's a reference to Western Ideal of Beauty. Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Completely Caucasian by any era.

Uh, your preference is not my preference. I shouldn't have to match with anyone. I just like what I like.

That's exactly what I'm saying.. Don't know where you are posting from --- but a simple trip to an American supermarket will show you an aisle of "western beauty" magazines that have ALL races on them. Try it sometime.
Or maybe you can find video on-line to take a virtual tour of the magazine racks in the US and UK..

 

[northpolarbear]

No idea what you are trying to bullshit. Clearly not what the expression the "traditional" Western ideal of beauty refers to nor what "I" want. What are you trying to say? That Caucasians are trying to appreciate all races in beauty & that I should too? No, I just feel what I feel. I have my standards & preferences which are my rights. I shouldn't be forced to like the faces I don't like just because that's what you want to see & what you want to have with your ideal not given a shit by me.

 

[Asclepias]

Logic is in the form of if then. I provided: "The idea is that whether something is rightful or not is dependent only on the action itself regardless of the unit. If something is rightful on some other unit, then it should be rightful in the unit of race as well. As for being rightful on some other unit, it is entitled morally & rightfully (there's nothing wrong with it aside from being your rightful, natural, valid, consequential, logical response), not just legally (it is your legal right as well). Hence, even when the unit happens to become in the unit of race, it is still rightful because the action itself is a rightful action. That's the logic."

There's the "if" & the "then" is "hence, such thing is not racism & even if you insist calling it racism, it is rightful". Racial hatred is not even racism as it doesn't involve the concept of superiority, & you can have preference on races without the concept of superiority. Claiming that I didn't provide logic & "why" part is simply a "lie" by a "liar".

If it is rightful to hate a thief or a murderer within your own race, ethnicity, country, it is rightful to hate a thief or a murderer of some other race, ethnicity, country. If it is rightful to hate an ugly girl of your own race, ethnicity, country (or a Caucasian), it is rightful to hate an ugly girl even if she is colored. Since whether something is rightful or not is on the action itself not "to whom", changing the target unit doesn't change being rightful. Hence, such is not racism aside from being rightful whether you call it racism or not by grouping with some other racism with equivocation.

Your circumlocution aside, you stlll seem to have a problem distinguishing your opinion from logic. Some cultures dont have the same cultural norms as others. In Korea for example they have no concept of personal space. We see that as rude in western culture. Its all subjective. Your love for the caucasion characteristics are just your cultural norms or a healthy does of self hate brought on by commercial brainwashing. On the other hand my cultural norms sees white physical characteristics as the least desirable. Does that make sense? Note I didnt confuse my opinion with logic like you did.

 

[northpolarbear]

You are the one who wants to insist logic as opinion. Logic is a matter of structure, which I do have. Modus Ponens. Opinion is an expression of believing something personally. It has nothing to do with logic. As for any of what I said, they are logic by being in that certain structure of validity. It is not a matter of believing something. It is a matter of the sentences following a certain structure. Hence, claiming what you want "that's not logic but belief" is false because you are claiming "your sentences do not follow this structure but are just listing what you believe". That's false; that's a lie by a liar. It's nothing more than an attempt (which is rejected) to wrongfully & sneakily downgrade a valid logic into a non-logic by lying. What you want to have & what you want to see are not important nor given a shit. Everything was logical & "in the structure approved by what is defined & perceived as logic". When talking logic, if there is a logical flaw, the focus is on the "there's a jump here" or "it is in this structure" or "it is not in this structure but in the structure of this fallacy". Blindly claiming "it's not in the structure approved by logic" when "it is" obviously does nothing other than being a lie by a liar. That's a wishful delusion.

Also, I have been very direct. At least as direct as I can. Before racism was determined to have nothing to do with racial hatred but with racial superiority, I was covering in all general directions instead of specifically face like just now.

Let's make another example on Korea. As for Korean preferring to date only Korean, Korean has the racial attributes of speaking Korean, having the Korean identity (speaks as a Korean identity, not some other identity), having the Korean culture, speaking the Korean language, feeling connected (by being within own ethnicity), feeling intact (by having a full complete Korean life with Korean), etc. Also, when you don't like some country, it is a "stain", "not easy on the eyes", "not easy on the mind", & you can prefer not to date someone from such without any claim on racial superiority or racial hatred (which isn't racism). + Koreans are recorded to look different from Asian in the 19th C. There are many reasons (focusing on face was only for the sake of the argument). I was talking the general Korean & how it is not about racism “especially as it’s not about superiority”. I prefer Caucasians. All such traits are preferred & better (at least to the individual) whether declaring superiority or not.

 

[northpolarbear]

See? There should be like a referee who cuts out people like these from debate. All they do is blindly "claiming" falsely with no logic at all. Like "claiming someone to be mental", "claiming something to be not logic but opinion", "claiming someone to not know logic". That's all they do. They should be cut out plain & simple.

 

[Asclepias]

You are the one who wants to insist logic as opinion. Logic is a matter of structure, which I do have. Modus Ponens. Opinion is an expression of believing something personally. It has nothing to do with logic. As for any of what I said, they are logic by being in that certain structure of validity. It is not a matter of believing something. It is a matter of the sentences following a certain structure. Hence, claiming what you want "that's not logic but belief" is false because you are claiming "your sentences do not follow this structure but are just listing what you believe". That's false; that's a lie by a liar. It's nothing more than an attempt (which is rejected) to wrongfully & sneakily downgrade a valid logic into a non-logic by lying. What you want to have & what you want to see are not important nor given a shit. Everything was logical & "in the structure approved by what is defined & perceived as logic". When talking logic, if there is a logical flaw, the focus is on the "there's a jump here" or "it is in this structure" or "it is not in this structure but in the structure of this fallacy". Blindly claiming "it's not in the structure approved by logic" when "it is" obviously does nothing other than being a lie by a liar. That's a wishful delusion.

Also, I have been very direct. At least as direct as I can. Before racism was determined to have nothing to do with racial hatred but with racial superiority, I was covering in all general directions instead of specifically face like just now.

Let's make another example on Korea. As for Korean preferring to date only Korean, Korean has the racial attributes of speaking Korean, having the Korean identity (speaks as a Korean identity, not some other identity), having the Korean culture, speaking the Korean language, feeling connected (by being within own ethnicity), feeling intact (by having a full complete Korean life with Korean), etc. Also, when you don't like some country, it is a "stain", "not easy on the eyes", "not easy on the mind", & you can prefer not to date someone from such without any claim on racial superiority or racial hatred (which isn't racism). + Koreans are recorded to look different from Asian in the 19th C. There are many reasons (focusing on face was only for the sake of the argument). I was talking the general Korean & how it is not about racism “especially as it’s not about superiority”. I prefer Caucasians. All such traits are preferred & better (at least to the individual) whether declaring superiority or not.

Your whole Korean example is pretty stupid. Koreans like different types of people as well.





Pretty much all people like different looking people.

 

[Asclepias]

See? There should be like a referee who cuts out people like these from debate. All they do is blindly "claiming" falsely with no logic at all. Like "claiming someone to be mental", "claiming something to be not logic but opinion", "claiming someone to not know logic". That's all they do. They should be cut out plain & simple.

I didnt claim you to be mental but I'm not going to agree with your silly ass opinion and call it logic. If that bothers you then maybe posting on a public forum is not for you. Sounds like you need your own personal blog so that you can talk at people.

 

[northpolarbear]

You don't have to agree with logic for a logic to be a logic. Logic doesn't require your agreement. The sentences just have to be in the Modus Ponens structure then it is "logic". Especially when you can't name any jump in the premises or any fallacy or any "some other structure being in use". Also, a logic doesn't get downgraded into an opinion "just because you say so". Still the same structure.

Posting on public forum is not an invitation for you to make false accusation & bother me with false claims. I am just telling you "you are false" with your claim on the "logic" being an "opinion" because you are "claiming" that the logic is not in the logical format which is false as it matches Modus Ponens. Whether something matches in structure or not is not up to you. You keep "insisting" such false claim is just an annoyance & false, nothing more. It is still logic. Obviously, people like you just "insist false claims anyway with no logic". Hence, I said that "there should a referee cutting off people like these". You got a problem with that? Too bad. Not my problem. There really should be a referee to cut off people like you.

Your attempt against Korean dating is hilarious. Such thing exists whether you claim "for all Korean or not". The point is how it is rightful & not racist. I myself date only Caucasian, not Asian (not even Korean, & certainly wouldn't go for a Chink or Jap).

I am grouping you & that Jap thingy guy together when I said "these guys should be cut off". That must have been so ambiguous especially because I said in plural.

 

[Asclepias]

You don't have to agree with logic for a logic to be a logic. Logic doesn't require your agreement. The sentences just have to be in the Modus Ponens structure then it is "logic". Especially when you can't name any jump in the premises or any fallacy or any "some other structure being in use". Also, a logic doesn't get downgraded into an opinion "just because you say so". Still the same structure.

Your attempt against Korean dating is hilarious. Such thing exists whether you claim "for all Korean or not". The point is how it is rightful & not racist.

I am grouping you & that Jap thingy guy together when I said "these guys should be cut off".

Of course you dont have to agree with logic for it to be logic. That has nothing to do with your retarded opinion.

What do you mean my attempt? I emphatically proved your bullshit is just bullshit. People from Korea find Black people, white people, Hispanic people etc attractive.

 

[northpolarbear]

Ah, hence we established that a logic doesn't require your agreement. You are just disagreeing that my sentences are not in the logical structure of "if this then that". Well, let's see.

"Since whether something is rightful or not is on the action itself not "to whom", changing the target unit doesn't change being rightful."

You are saying the part "whether something is rightful or not is on the action itself not "to whom"" is wrong? Because "if" that part is true, the consequent part has to be true "by logic". "If" the antecedent is true, the consequent part has to be true "by logic". If the premise is true, the conclusion is true when it follows the logical format.

Or are you claiming that "if then" structure is right but it turns wrong when it applies to race? This is false as the target unit doesn't change what the action itself, concluded legitimate aside from not being racism anyway by its definition, is.

So, it's not that this is not logical. It is just that you don't want to see it & don't want to have it that way. Which is not given a shit by me.

 

[Asclepias]

Ah, hence we established that a logic doesn't require your agreement. You are just disagreeing that my sentences are not in the logical structure of "if this then that". Well, let's see.

"Since whether something is rightful or not is on the action itself not "to whom", changing the target unit doesn't change being rightful."

You are saying the part "whether something is rightful or not is on the action itself not "to whom"" is wrong? Because "if" that part is true, the consequent part has to be true "by logic".

No. I could care less about the structure of your opinion. I'm just telling and proving to you its no where near logical.

 

[Sallow]

No there aren't any measurable physical, biological or intellectual differences between races.

Incorrect..there are race specific diseases...taylor-sachs...sickle cell anemiea...cystic fibrosis are a few...

a forensic anthropologist can determine the race of a skeleton by making measurements at critical points...

the average mongoloid IQ is 10-15 points higher than the average caucasian...the average caucasian IQ is 10-15 points higher than the average negroid IQ...which coincidentally is the lowest among humans...

hard facts....

The fact that a person with dark skin and a person with light skin can have sexual intercourse and produce offspring shoots your "theory" to shit.

no...human is a species..like canine (Canidae) is a species....

all humans can interbreed...just like all canines can...
"Race" among humans is like "Breeds" among dogs...there are marked and measurable differences among dog breeds...just like there are marked and measurable differences among the various races..

None of those are "hard facts" and the diseases you describe occur in populations with little or no genetic diversity.

Kind of like when siblings have offspring.

 

[Asclepias]

No there aren't any measurable physical, biological or intellectual differences between races.

Incorrect..there are race specific diseases...taylor-sachs...sickle cell anemiea...cystic fibrosis are a few...

a forensic anthropologist can determine the race of a skeleton by making measurements at critical points...

the average mongoloid IQ is 10-15 points higher than the average caucasian...the average caucasian IQ is 10-15 points higher than the average negroid IQ...which coincidentally is the lowest among humans...

hard facts....

The fact that a person with dark skin and a person with light skin can have sexual intercourse and produce offspring shoots your "theory" to shit.

no...human is a species..like canine (Canidae) is a species....

all humans can interbreed...just like all canines can...
"Race" among humans is like "Breeds" among dogs...there are marked and measurable differences among dog breeds...just like there are marked and measurable differences among the various races..

None of those are "hard facts" and the diseases you describe occur in populations with little or no genetic diversity.

Kind of like when siblings have offspring.

Not to mention the scientific fact his genetic pool is problematic due to inbreeding

 

[Rotagilla]

No there aren't any measurable physical, biological or intellectual differences between races.

Incorrect..there are race specific diseases...taylor-sachs...sickle cell anemiea...cystic fibrosis are a few...

a forensic anthropologist can determine the race of a skeleton by making measurements at critical points...

the average mongoloid IQ is 10-15 points higher than the average caucasian...the average caucasian IQ is 10-15 points higher than the average negroid IQ...which coincidentally is the lowest among humans...

hard facts....

The fact that a person with dark skin and a person with light skin can have sexual intercourse and produce offspring shoots your "theory" to shit.

no...human is a species..like canine (Canidae) is a species....

all humans can interbreed...just like all canines can...
"Race" among humans is like "Breeds" among dogs...there are marked and measurable differences among dog breeds...just like there are marked and measurable differences among the various races..

None of those are "hard facts" and the diseases you describe occur in populations with little or no genetic diversity.

Kind of like when siblings have offspring.

those are all facts...just because you say "nuh uh" doesn't change them..you need to read some about human biodiversity and racial differences.....and try to get a handle on the difference between "race" and "species"...

 

[northpolarbear]

"No. I could care less about the structure of your opinion. I'm just telling and proving to you its no where near logical."

And you "telling me" is nothing more than annoyance & false. You should be cut off from this. If the premise is true & if I am using the correct rule of inference, the conclusion is logic & "has to be true". That's the end of it. Plain & simple. If you claim that's not logic, you are plain "wrong" in the reality (& obviously I see it that way). You are just persisting unreasonably for your want.

 

[Asclepias]

"No. I could care less about the structure of your opinion. I'm just telling and proving to you its no where near logical."

And you "telling me" is nothing more than annoyance & false. You should be cut off from this. If the premise is true & if I am using the correct rule of inference, the conclusion is logic & "has to be true". That's the end of it. Plain & simple. If you claim that's not logic, you are plain "wrong" in the reality (& obviously I see it that way). You are just persisting unreasonably for your want.

Ahh....The problem is your premise is not true. Your premise is just a reflection of your opinion. Do you understand now why its not logic? You cant even prove your premise is true because I already disproved it.

 

[northpolarbear]

Exactly "which part" of this premise is not true?

"Since whether something is rightful or not is on the action itself not "to whom", changing the target unit doesn't change being rightful."

You are saying that whether an "action" is rightful or wrongful is decided not on the action itself but on the target? Whether an "action" is right or wrong is focusing on the action itself "regardless of the target unit" which is not included in the action.