Racism and interracial couples in U.S.

[KrazyHorse]

There are certain cases where they are allowed to act capriciously. For example over here a doctor is allowed to say no to not prescribing (I know I'm using the wrong word but I can't think of the right one) an abortion if a woman ask for it, but he is under obligation to send her to a doctor who will.

First off, doctors in NA are not civil servants. Not even in Canada.

Also what about a muslim civil servant that refused to marry a muslim woman and atheist/pagan/Jewish/Christian man because it goes against his religion?

Then he would be fired.

[SlowwHand]

Originally Posted by MrFun
So we're not suppose to discuss race issues as they come up just because it happened in a Southern state?

It seems as if you've never been in the South and so are unable to make distinctions in attitudes among different parts of the South.

He's a generalizing dork.

[DanS]

On Poly, it's used in the sense I gave.

I'm part of the vanguard of change. Embrace it.

[Heraclitus]

Racialist is an uncommon word. In common parlance you would be a racist. Racialism does not carry the connotation that you believe in the superiority of or need for dominance by any given race; it simply means that you believe that certain races are innately better at certain things.

Now, if you want to carry this to the extreme, very few people wouldn't be racialists at all; for example, only the ignorant would claim that white people aren't innately better at not getting sickle-cell anemia.

The line between racialism and simple evidence-based beliefs comes when you start to get into the question of more poorly-defined quantities and those subject to environmental effects like intelligence or athletic ability.

But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist?

I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based?


Dosen't this mean that you can be called a boo word (a racist) because you reason acording to evidence? Or to put it bluntly is the only sure way of avoiding this particular stigma that might cost you your job or friends is to ignore facts?

[Heraclitus]

Then he would be fired.

As he would in Slovenia, but he probably wouldn't be in a large part of the Muslim world.



In any case I specifically said I the post was void if this wasn't within his right (I was under the impression that the activist was trying to change the rules not that he was trying to make a case for an exception to the rules).The post you quoted was simply my crude attempt to point out that it isn't self obvious that all civil servants don't have right to certain capricious decisions unless you happen to live in NA.

[Heraclitus]

This is very true. Racism is a two way street.

Duh? That's the very definition, off course people of all races can be racist. But how you used this makes no sense.


If I understand it right most US blacks go by various variations of the one drop rule to decide if someone is black.

Example: Barack Obama is considered black

[Heraclitus]

But if I had any surprise, it would be that any government official can still get away with denying marriage license to interracial couples in this day and age in U.S.

Wait wasn't this an individual? Couldn't they get the marriage license in the same office/city from another guy?

[KrazyHorse]

But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist?

I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based?

Are you having some serious problems reading English?

a) I said that you would be a racialist if we were being careful about terminology. In COMMON PARLANCE you would be a racist, because the distinction between racism and racialism is rarely acknowledged.

b) I have no idea why you're complaining about some aspects of racial differences being strongly evidence based. I gave an example of this myself to demonstrate that there was a continuum of beliefs about the inherent properties of different races, ranging from the self-evident "I believe black people are better at not getting sunburn than white people" to the obviously controversial "I believe that white people tend to be less violent and more intelligent than black people as a result of genetic differences" and beyond. My point is that the line between racialism and simple knowledge is somewhat fuzzy, but can be defined at least broadly.

[KrazyHorse]

As he would in Slovenia, but he probably wouldn't be in a large part of the Muslim world.

Who cares what goes on in those ****holes of countries? I certainly don't want my gov't structured the way theirs are (even the "enlightened" ones).

[KrazyHorse]

Hera, not only is the JP not within his rights, but if he were specifically GRANTED the right to refuse to marry interracial couples by state law I'm fairly certain that this law would be struck down on constitutional grounds.

[Tattila the Hun]

The guy does what he does because of past experience, if I understand correctly. If 9 interracial couples out of ten he has married end up divorcing, or their kids end up, er, troubled, is it surprising, if he feels they just don't work, and are generally a bad idea?

[Heraclitus]

But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist?

I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based?

Are you having some serious problems reading English?

a) I said that you would be a racialist if we were being careful about terminology. In COMMON PARLANCE you would be a racist, because the distinction between racism and racialism is rarely acknowledged.

b) I have no idea why you're complaining about some aspects of racial differences being strongly evidence based. I gave an example of this myself to demonstrate that there was a continuum of beliefs about the inherent properties of different races, ranging from the self-evident "I believe black people are better at not getting sunburn than white people" to the obviously controversial "I believe that white people tend to be less violent and more intelligent than black people as a result of genetic differences" and beyond. My point is that the line between racialism and simple knowledge is somewhat fuzzy, but can be defined at least broadly.

You said that certain beliefs about biological differences that are based on evidence would be considered simply evidence based belief not racialism. Or to rephrase it almost everyone would be considered racialist to a degree if he acknowledges these facts. And you also said the distinction between racism and racialism is rarley made and that racialists are most often branded racist.

So is it not logical from this that simply stating a fact can cause someone to call you a racist? And is it not true that being percieved a racist often comes with unpleasant consequences?



Yes the distinction is fuzzy, but what if you get called a racist simply because many people are scientifically iliterate and don't know that what you are stating isn't contraversial among experts at all? (example: What would have people said if you went around saying even a decade or so ago that your race is relevant to your treatment?) Shouldn't we strive for a society where saying 2+2=4 (to borrow from Orwell) dosen't cause you to loose social status?

[Heraclitus]

Hera, not only is the JP not within his rights, but if he were specifically GRANTED the right to refuse to marry interracial couples by state law I'm fairly certain that this law would be struck down on constitutional grounds.

Ok I get this now no need to explain.

[Heraclitus]

The guy does what he does because of past experience, if I understand correctly. If 9 interracial couples out of ten he has married end up divorcing, or their kids end up, er, troubled, is it surprising, if he feels they just don't work, and are generally a bad idea?

I have a unrelated question, do the statistics back up his "experience"?

[KrazyHorse]

You said that certain beliefs about biological differences that are based on evidence would be considered simply evidence based belief not racialism. Or to rephrase it almost everyone would be considered racialist to a degree if he acknowledges these facts. And you also said the distinction between racism and racialism is rarley made and that racialists are most often branded racist.

So is it not logical from this that simply stating a fact can cause someone to call you a racist? And is it not true that being percieved a racist often comes with unpleasant consequences?

How ****ing stupid are you? I said that:

a) Often, what I would consider "racialism" is branded "racism"
b) A careless definition of racialism (one without a judgment on how self-evident/non-controversial a belief is) would brand almost everybody a racialist.

I never said that people in general had a careless definition of racialism

Holy ****, son. Get a ****ing grip.