naive Wrote:

joker8baller Wrote:

naive Wrote:I could care less if I offend any homosexuals or anybody, i respect and am respected by numerous gay folk whom I offend regularly. Gay men dating women is a selfish experiment that may hurt women any way to you look at it. Presuming from Rivals claim that he is gay from birth and it is not a choice.. from my perspective, either it wasn't serious relationship worth mentioning or he did it just for the pretend veil of being able to say "I'm not racist".

Tell me if you deny any of these definitions.

Racism Defined: Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Prejudice Defined: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.
preconceived defined: Formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.

and deny these assumptions:
Koreans are a race.
the generalization that "most koreans love starcraft" is a preconceived opinion (no evidence) about a race


If not, then a preconceived opinion about koreans regarging starcraft logically can be defined as racism.

Yep. Disagree.

As I stated before, the accepted definition of racism requires a crucial factor that is not present in Rival's statement.

Quote:Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.

I don't agree with your definition of racism as it's much more broad, not specific and gives room for grey areas. I'm regarding the definition of racism akin to the strict scrutiny method used by the Supreme Court. If it fails any part of the definition then it cannot be regarded as such.

The definition of racism that I'm holding it to is one that is accepted by others and is not a self-definition.

I also find fault with your definition of preconceived

Quote:Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.

With this definition, Rival's experience is that most Korean play SC2. It's too broad and not specific as in your racism definition. Rival's experience is his evidence in this matter, it's one that may not be true but it's his experience.

The difference in our opinion is based on the definition of racism, you're using a different definition from me and that is a crucial aspect. I believe that your definition of racism is often utilized by others who seek to claim racism in situations that there are not. I pull mine from other sources and I believe them to be truthful.

Quote:I could care less if I offend any homosexuals or anybody, i respect and am respected by numerous gay folk whom I offend regularly. Gay men dating women is a selfish experiment that may hurt women any way to you look at it. Presuming from Rivals claim that he is gay from birth and it is not a choice.. from my perspective, either it wasn't serious relationship worth mentioning or he did it just for the pretend veil of being able to say "I'm not racist".

You're respected by numerous gay folk who you offend regularly?

And that's a fucking bullshit comment.

I don't exactly remember if Rival claims he was gay from birth. I believe that was someone else. Either way, are you saying that gay people don't have a chance to be bi-sexual? Are these people merely selfish assholes?

Are they not afforded the opportunity to see if they are truly gay? We can't confirm the situation, but what happens if she was cool with him being gay?

I find it hard to believe to find truth in your statement. If you're truly respected by numerous gay folk but have the attitude that them dating women is a selfish experiment... Seems like your belief is that they only should date men and stick that way. They are not allowed to experiment with their sexuality in different ways as afforded to straight people.

Disclaimer: I was drunk as shit last night.

Well, if you are declining the validity of definitions in the Merriam-Webster dictionary then that's as far as I can go in a logical argument with you as you are denying established definitions.  If the dictionary is too controversial in its definition of racism for you, I think you have many other issues to contend with before you continue debating me.

Rivals experience isn't with Koreans as a race, and is a perfect example of acceptable racism. Your problem I believe is that you think something has to be inherently negative to be racist, which is not the case. His experience is with a small group of individuals who happened to be Korean. Extrapolating out to the entire Korean race is just poor logic and not true. If his judgements are not based on logic, yet are applied to the Korean race then it is a broad assumption about a race based on a perception with no evidence. I have experience looking at the moon through a telescope, but that does not give me the evidence or experience necessary to say it is made of cheese. Saying Koreans love starcraft is essentially the same statement as saying that asians are good at math (a common example of a racist stereotype).

I'm friends with transsexuals, gays, straights, south koreans, everyone, and I will viciously attack and offend people about what I believe them to be wrong about, its the fact that learning normally happens through this process for both of us in which the mutual respect comes in. Claiming for something to be selfish does not necessarily make it wrong, it's selfish for me to ask my girlfriend to give me head but I do that anyways. I was too drunk to iterate this point well last night but saying 'im not racist i dated an indian' is about as valid of a statement as 'im not gay i dated a girl'. Plenty of slave owners 'dated' their slaves, where they not racist? In terms of the gayness hurting the partner in a perceived heterosexual relationship, that is very real. I know a straight male who's girl turned lesbian, and a gay male whos partner decided he was really straight. Both knew of the others potential to be homosexual/heterosexual prior but were still completely devastated by the incidents... its psychology. In this case however, I was too drunk to make a good joke or point so it ended up somewhere else. 

If you want to go only against what a US Court could convict me for, then logically speaking me speaking the statement "All British people should be clubbed to death at birth" would not be racism as no actual actions were taken thus no crime committed. Your logic is flawed.

Quote:Well, if you are declining the validity of definitions in the Merriam-Webster dictionary then that's as far as I can go in a logical argument with you as you are denying established definitions.  If the dictionary is too controversial in its definition of racism for you, I think you have many other issues to contend with before you continue debating me.

I'm not. I cited the definition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. My definition that I read, copy and pasted, and placed into my post was different from yours and enforced a must stricter version for the definition. So please, take the time and actually read the post.

Quote:Racism Defined: Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Prejudice Defined: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.
preconceived defined: Formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.

You're asserting these are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary?

Racism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2) racial prejudice or discrimination

Yeah. I grabbed them direct from the website. It looks like your definitions are from somewhere else. So don't tell me I'm rejecting the Miriam-Webster definitions nor that I have issues.

Like I said before, we're going to agree to disagree. I find arguing with you is similar to arguing with a brick wall. Especially when you don't read my posts in depth, nor respond to other significant points that I bring up. I'm done arguing with you. Done with the thread.

My logic may be flawed in your eyes, but yours is flawed as well.