What's wrong with racism?

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course he did. He was a Nazi and Nazis were Christian.

 

[JGG]

I've been trying...but I seem to have misplaced my purple lightsaber.

You could try words.

Because to be a moral relativist---that is, to be one who holds that morality is simply relative to each person and/or each cultural group---involves one's commitment to some level of substantial "tolerance" for the views of others. Of course, there are different kinds of moral relativism and various issues within this view.

It also involves the concept of morality being relative to place and time. Something morally wrong at the time of the Canaanites is also morally wrong today, and vice versa.

I'm having some logistical problems in finding just "where" you sit in all of this, but I have an idea ...

I felt the quote made it pretty clear.

Before you bow out, what's wrong with racism?

 

[JGG]

Do you have a problem with my logic there?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You could try words.



It also involves the concept of morality being relative to place and time. Something morally wrong at the time of the Canaanites is also morally wrong today, and vice versa.

I felt the quote made it pretty clear.

Right. And I already said I disagreed with it, and I told you why. I seem to be sensing a pattern here. I affirm something, and you continue to question me as if I didn't say anything or you deny what I say without good, solid explanations.

Before you bow out, what's wrong with racism?

We haven't agreed on a definition yet. And even if we did, for you to seemingly "win" the argument, we'd have to go with a modern, up-to-date definition. But if we do that, then we can't identify God's position in the Old Testament as anything akin to modern racism. Oh dear. What ever shall we do? Because in the Bible, the Canaanites weren't being picked on because of genetic differences, but because of their bad behavior and a lack of moral recognition.

One thing I haven't heard from you is the question, "Well hey, 2PhiloVoid, just what are these contexts you keep talking about in the Old Testament that supposedly displace God's view from being like Hitler's view?"

 

[JGG]

We haven't agreed on a definition yet. And even if we did, for you to seemingly "win" the argument, we'd have to go with a modern, up-to-date definition. But if we do that, then we can't identify God's position in the Old Testament as anything akin to modern racism. Oh dear. What ever shall we do? Because in the Bible, the Canaanites weren't being picked on because of genetic differences, but because of their bad behavior and a lack of moral recognition.

1. the reason they were being picked on is actually irrelevent. Remember, what I'm talking about is the idea that all members of the race have the same attributes. You just confirmed that for me.

2. Modern racism vs any other is irrelevent. If we agree that "modern racism" is immoral then it has always been immoral (see moral relativity).

Unless of course there is nothing immoral about racism.

One thing I haven't heard from you is the question, "Well hey, 2PhiloVoid, just what are these contexts you keep talking about in the Old Testament that supposedly displace God's view from being like Hitler's view?"

Well, because it really doesn't matter, does it?

 

[zelosravioli]

We haven't agreed on a definition yet... True definitions are often a wall/impassable

So break the question into the different definitions:
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their biological species' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their skin color' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their nationality' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their culture' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their ancestry: white/black/asian/aborigine'?

(or make your own)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1. the reason they were being picked on is actually irrelevent. Remember, what I'm talking about is the idea that all members of the race have the same attributes. You just confirmed that for me.

2. Modern racism vs any other is irrelevent. If we agree that "modern racism" is immoral then it has always been immoral (see moral relativity).

Unless of course there is nothing immoral about racism.



Well, because it really doesn't matter, does it?

It actually does matter; but it apparently doesn't matter to you. And that's really where we're at here, isn't it? Apparently, you want the entire stage to present your monologue wherein Christians here are subjected to your own, personally tailored amphibology and reductionism. That way, you don't have to consider either the 'other side' of the argument, or even the multi-faceted complexity of the issues involved. If someone raises an objection, you can just shew them off with a denial, or a feign to ignorance, or repeated questioning when answers have already been offered.

For the record, I haven't confirmed anything to you as yet. I don't agree with your definition. I don't see that you've even begun to substantiate your side of the argument. I'm willing to take us further to substantiate my side of the argument........but alas, you won't have that because, supposedly, it's all irrelevant.

Ok. Enjoy your monologue. Just don't be surprised that when you open your eyes after giving your exciting climax to your polemics that there's nothing but an empty hall.

[If I had a dime for every time I've heard a Skeptic or Atheist cheaply dole out the word, "Irrelevant"...]

Adios.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We haven't agreed on a definition yet... True definitions are often a wall/impassable

So break the question into the different definitions:
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their biological species' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their skin color' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their nationality' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their culture' (racism)?
What's wrong with 'judging a person solely on their ancestry: white/black/asian/aborigine'?

(or make your own)

I was going to introduce something like this to the considerations, but he seems to think it's all irrelevant. So, we can just save our time here and desist.

 

[JGG]

It actually does matter; but it apparently doesn't matter to you. And that's really where we're at here, isn't it? Apparently, you want the entire stage to present your monologue wherein Christians here are subjected to your own, personally tailored amphibology and reductionism. That way, you don't have to consider not only the 'other side' of the argument, but even the multi-faceted complexity of the issues involved. If someone raises an objection, you can just shew them off with a denial, or a feign to ignorance, or repeated questioning when answers have already been offered.

I understand that. But as of yet you have yet to acknowledge that you understand what my argument actually is. Once you can do that, I'm more than happy to hear the 'other side'. I have repeatedly put out different takes on the same argument, and rather than address it, you offer a rebuttal on something else.

When I ask specific question that can clear something up, you ignore it, or misinterpret it, and go in a different direction. Or simply say 'I disagree' without explanation.

If these things really do matter explain why. My impression is that you're trying not to understand my position, and keep trying to distract me with things that don't seem to matter.

For the record, I haven't confirmed anything to you as yet. I don't agree with your definition.

For the record, I have asked you to provide a definition you would prefer to use.

I don't see that you've even begun to substantiate your side of the argument. I'm willing to take us further to substantiate my side of the argument........but alas, you won't have that because, suppesedly, it's irrelevant.

I understand. I just don't think you've addressed the actual premise I have presented, and reject the definition of racism I have presented without offering something you would prefer. There's nowhere for me to go if we can't agree on that. At the moment, I'm not sure if we even know that racism is immoral.

Ok. Enjoy your monologue. Just don't be surprised that when you open your eyes after giving your exciting climax to your polemics, there nothing but an empty hall.

[If I had a dime for every time I've heard a Skeptic or Atheist cheaply dole out the word, "Irrelevant"...]

Adios.

Well yes. Rather than address my point you keep trying to take me down paths we don't need to go down. Why the Canaanites were 'picked on', whether they were exterminated, whether God was justified in doing so, the context behind it etc...it misses the point I'm trying make.

The Bible presents me with this ethnic group, and says they all share a set of attributes.

That fits the definition of racism I presented (which you reject).

This leads me to ask the question: is (modern) racism wrong? If so, what does that mean here?

If you don't feel you can present the other side of that argument then it might be a good time to bow out.

 

[JGG]

I was going to introduce something like this to the considerations, but he seems to think it's all irrelevant. So, we can just save our time here and desist.

Not at all! I keep asking you to present a definition of racism we might agree to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not at all! I keep asking you to present a definition of racism we might agree to.

I think you've been missing my point. And that point is: there is no universal definition as yet as to what EXACTLY constitutes racism, but when we look at the suffering of people in things like the Atlantic Slave Trade or the Jews decimated by Hitler in the Holocaust, we can ALL agree that those situations "hurt" and really involved nothing more than (bad) reasons having to do with people's PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS as to the supposed justification of the hurt.

 

[JGG]

I think you've been missing my point. And that point is: there is no universal definition as yet as to what EXACTLY constitutes racism, but when we look at the suffering of people in things like the Atlantic Slave Trade or the Jews decimated by Hitler in the Holocaust, we can ALL agree that those situations "hurt" and really involved nothing more that reasons having to do with people's PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS as to the supposed justification of the hurt.

But that's not helpful.

A definition we can agree to makes it possible to say this is racism, that is not. Besides we don't all agree that slavery is wrong, that the execution of Jews was immoral, or that racism is even something to be condemned.

In the Merriam-Webster definition what do you object to? Does that definition describe something immoral, or not?

If they had been judged on something else (country of origin, religious belief, sexual orientation), would that hurt have been justified? Would it have been moral?

Is it fair to say that all black people, or all Hispanic people, or all white people share a set of intrinsic personal characteristics?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But that's not helpful.

A definition we can agree to makes it possible to say this is racism, that is not. Besides we don't all agree that slavery is wrong, that the execution of Jews was immoral, or that racism is even something to be condemned.

No, two people agreeing on a definition doesn't 'make' that the qualifier for whether something really is right or wrong. So, our agreement alone isn't going to cut it. The reality is that moral issues are difficult for human beings to sort out, especially so if there is no clear mind of authority that can provide knowledge or direction on how things really are structured in our universe. So, we end up with power struggles over moral issues; and we all hope that those who are trying to be tolerant win out.

In the Merriam-Webster definition what do you object to? Does that definition describe something immoral, or not?

On just a personal level, I object to the idea that racism includes calling people (or other people groups) to account for their ongoing moral incursions against other people (or against their children).

If they had been judged on something else (country of origin, religious belief, sexual orientation), would that hurt have been justified? Would it have been moral?

Judging people on moral characteristics is the only real ground that we find in ANY ethical system, whether that of the Bible or any of one of a dozen others.

Is it fair to say that all black people, or all Hispanic people, or all white people share a set of intrinsic personal characteristics?

Yes, it is. In fact, all typically healthy human beings have nearly the same genetic make-up. Period. They have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, a mind, a heart, and reproductive organs, all of which are best used in ways that are conducive to peaceful and constructive interaction with families and communities. Do you disagree with this? (And no, I didn't miss your point here that different people groups can have differences...minor physical differences. But, I think it's much, much more important to realize that they can also have moral differences).

But, wouldn't it just be easier to say that this is all irrelevant? [See, I can say it, too.]

 

[Ana the Ist]

I felt the quote made it pretty clear.

Before you bow out, what's wrong with racism?

What exactly is the racist belief you hold that you feel justified in believing in spite of it's racism?

 

[Dave-W]

He was a Nazi and he was a German. Both are Christian. That's the whole story.

He was NOT born again. Therefore NOT Christian. Whole story.

 

[RDKirk]

He was NOT born again. Therefore NOT Christian. Whole story.

Not if you know people by their fruit, and in his case, not even lip service. Neither the inside nor the outside of the cup was clean.

 

[JGG]

What exactly is the racist belief you hold that you feel justified in believing in spite of it's racism?

I haven't figured that out yet. Nothing springs to mind.

In dealing with people on here I've found that we can agree that racism is bad. But because we can't agree on what makes it bad, it's little more than saying that word has negative connotations.

So I'm hoping to be able to identify why racism is morally wrong (assuming it is).

As they say: better to be a racist than to be called a racist.

 

[JGG]

He was NOT born again. Therefore NOT Christian. Whole story.

Germans and Nazis are Christians. We don't care about individuals. Did he belong to that collective? Yes. He was a Christian.

 

[Dave-W]

Germans and Nazis are Christians.

Some Germans are Christians and many more are NOT Christians.

I am not sure I would characterize any Nazis as Christians.

 

[JGG]

No, two people agreeing on a definition doesn't 'make' that the qualifier for whether something really is right or wrong. So, our agreement alone isn't going to cut it. The reality is that moral issues are difficult for human beings to sort out, especially so if there is no clear mind of authority that can provide knowledge or direction on how things really are structured in our universe. So, we end up with power struggles over moral issues; and we all hope that those who are trying to be tolerant win out.

Is saying that Jews are deceitful racist? Why or why not?

On just a personal level, I object to the idea that racism includes calling people (or other people groups) to account for their ongoing moral incursions against other people (or against their children).

Like in Rwanda when the Tutsis faced extermination, you would feel comfortable saying that the Hutu are a violent, murderous race, and it wouldn't be racist?

Judging people on moral characteristics is the only real ground that we find in ANY ethical system, whether that of the Bible or any of one of a dozen others.

Can I judge all Jews to be deceitful? All Hutu to be violent and murderous?

Yes, it is. In fact, all typically healthy human beings have nearly the same genetic make-up. Period. They have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, a mind, a heart, and reproductive organs, all of which are best used in ways that are conducive to peaceful and constructive interaction with families and communities. Do you disagree with this? (And no, I didn't miss your point here that different people groups can have differences...minor physical differences. But, I think it's much, much more important to realize that they can also have moral differences).

But, wouldn't it just be easier to say that this is all irrelevant? [See, I can say it, too.]

Great. Is it reasonable then to say that Jews are intrinsically deceitful?