Zantra said:
This is starting to sound like the "Bill Clinton" of word definitions.
Seriously? We aren't talking about the finer distinctions of the term "lynching" here. There is a gulf of difference between a person who has misguided ideas of how to help others and a person who hates and oppresses others.
Zantra said:
So that we are all on the same page, from dictionary.com:
rac⋅ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
Use racism in a Sentence
See web results for racism
See images of racism
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another
So based on def 2, we could infer that anyone acting as an agent of the goevernment (read JOP) who promotes the ideology of intolerance of another human being- and he is promoting it by making it a point of issue, falls into the the category of a racist.
I highlighted points which you seem to be taking for granted. We have seen no evidence that the JoP is hateful or intolerant or that he feels people of other races or inferior or of a lesser achievement. You consider him a racist and so infer these things though there is no evidence of them and shine on any idea that he may be telling the truth when he says he is concerned for the welfare of children. You infer that because it is a poor and misguided idea that it is only an excuse for an inherently racist idea. I really don't understand how the idea
being illogical means that he must be racist, yet another illogical idea.
Zantra said:
Now, I will concede that it does require some very basic inferences of logic to assume that if someone confirms the belief that he supports it, but ignorance is no excuse for this topic in this time period. So he can't hide behind some assumption that he was devoid of any social awareness regarding racism in the deep south, in 2009 where it continues to be such an issue, relative to the rest of the country.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. But yes you are inferring much based on very little. If you would like I can probably find you several articles inferring that blacks must be inferior to whites based on facts from prison, crime, and educational statistics. To racists it is only logical. And using statistics really is more logical than using word definitions to pick apart the logic behind a couple of statements in order to infer a persons inner thoughts and convictions.
Zantra said:
Here's the root of the issue: It's just a backhanded compliment: you're not bad-looking, for a fat ugly ogre. It's the same thing as saying I'm going to discriminate against you to prevent your child from being discriminated against. While some may argue somantically that he's not technically a racist, there are definable racial overtones, and while he may not be guilty in the strictest sense on a technicality, the court of public opinion has already judged it, and I have to agree. In fact, it would take a Bill Clinton to talk his way out of this one!
In fact you are using semantics to imply that he is obviously racist, as I noted earlier. There is a general definition for the term "discriminate" which does not necessitate hate or value judgment. You argue the aptness of the terms application and then jump straight from "discrimination" to "racial discrimination", since it involves race and so technically applies, and so by logical slight of hand lump in the additional connotations specific to the term "racial discrimination" without ever arguing the aptness of the additional connotations.
The "court of public opinion" can be quite ugly. It is of course where we tend to see the most bigotry and closed mindedness. I try not to associate myself with it.
Zantra said:
Besides, you can't defend his statement without inferring that he's either a liar or unintelligent. There's no win here for this guy.
There are many people intelligent and otherwise who have been against mixed marriage and interbreeding. Ironically it is apparently the very reason why the laws were instituted which brought the poor couple before this Justice of the Peace.
Zantra said:
What bothers me is that people are working very hard to justify his behavior as an innocent misstep or "well intentioned. i could go to the Nazi well, but I'll refrain. HOWEVER.. One could ask: is it REALLY better for the offspring of this couple not to breed, or better for HIM? Because while he says one thing, his actions indicate the other. And let's see...thinning out the herd, gentetic manipulation to provide a more harmonious "race".. I know I've heard that before... let's seee.
Ahh well.. you'll figure it out.
Yes well, apparently my whole family are on par with Hitler then. My step father's traditionalist family who tried to prevent him from marrying my mother because she is white. My southern grandparents who have been brainwashed from childhood with racist ideas but who are probably the nicest people you could ever meet and would never treat anyone poorly at all for any reason short of murder. They happened to be far more accepting of my step father than his family were of my mother by the way.
Yes, I supposed that about half of the people in the world that I care about most are really as despicable and disgusting as Nazis no matter how nice and well intentioned of people they are.
