“Happens to” as if it’s a matter of luck?
Unfortunately for you, children are of the same race as the parents. Does that bother you deeply?
Do you hate the idea that common mating between humans, is inherently “racist”?
I’ve heard of pure breeding, of horses to jump higher and run faster. Also there is dog breeding, quite common, for shows and competitions. In either case, genes and blood lines are very sensitive. No mixing lines and breeds. No inferior breeds. As a breeder, this is common sense.
Now, I ask you and other anti-racists, does breeding apply to humanity, or not? Are some lines of humans “engineered”? Are you? Do you “choose” your mates, or somebody else, for you? If mixing blood lines is bad in horses and dogs, then would it also be bad in humans?
Simple questions, and as Only_Humean mentioned earlier, be honest. That means, answering my questions directly and succinctly.
You really don’t get it, do you? Your intellectual capacity seems insufficient to carry on this conversation. Sorry about that.
Tell me again how a child “happens to” have the same hair as one of his or her parents. Luck, is it?
How “lucky” does a Japanese couple have to be, to give birth to African, Indian, or European children?
What’s the % like 50-50?
You’re putting the cart before the horse. I’ve already explained how race is secondary and derivative, and individual/family is primary. This is basic genetics. And I’ve already shown how you care for your own children not because they are your own race, rather you care about their “race” because you care about them qua being your child.
You keep insisting on reversing the logic. I don’t know how to get you to stop doing that, so I’ll just ignore any future posts of yours that commit the same logical error.
Why would you even consider this question? Your first instinct is - at least mine would be - always to save your own child even if he/she got away from you and was more, much more distant than the black child was. There is no shame in that.
You might call to some other adult to try to save the other child. You would probably feel guilt and remorse if that other child was killed despite the fact that it probably couldn’t be helped unless you were the Flash.
That isn’t what racism is about. Racism is about thinking that because you are white, you are superior in every way, to an African American or other black person. It’s about hating African Americans or other black people simply because they are.
Racism goes beyond tunnel vision. There is no true vision.
Yes, may be about racism. On the other hand, it might just be some unexplainable fluke that made you go in one direction as opposed to another.
Do you have any children, Wrong?
Tell me, how does one even go about preaching to others to not be racist?
Here is the white man and here is the black man.
The white man turns in the black man for being a rapist ~ for raping a child, color is not important. The child can be green for that matter.
Is the white man a racist?
Am I a racist for detesting this black man or maybe I’m simply detesting the INDIVIDUAL for his act?
Of course, right from the beginning after beginning to read this, you might call me a racist because I used the black man as an example of being a rapist. But don’t forget, we’re talking about racism here.
We all have our biases. I am quite aware of mine. Anyone, for the moment, without being fully conscious of who they are and what their feelings and thoughts are, might begin to succumb to some form of racism in the moment because of some dynamic. I suppose that might be part of the instinct to survive ~ maybe. But generally, the non-racist judges the INDIVIDUAL based on what he or she has done, not based on the color of their skin.
Other things also are not about racism - just about personal preferences.
I like this painting and you like that one. Does that mean that I hate art, that I don’t value it?
Whose logic is reversed though? To care about your child, is necessarily to care about your race, making you and everybody else that cares for their children, racists.
Because most or all of the “anti-racists” go on and on about how tragic and guilty people ought to be for racism, yet they are racists themselves.
So it’s not about “racism” exactly. It’s about duplicity. It’s about the advantage some people get from making others guilty for racism, but themselves, enjoy the benefits and privileges of “being racist”. Preferring one’s own kind is the first step. It can be good or bad, given the context. Would you turn your child, spouse, parent, or family member in for a crime? How about a serious crime? To what degree of loyalty and “care” do average people demonstrate toward family, and then toward race?
I understand if these questions frighten and scare you, keep you up all night.
Assuming that you are not just having fun with it, you actually are making a logical fallacy and false allegation.
Racism is choosing because of race.
Choosing one’s own child is not because of race, but because of familial association.
The end result is that race benefits, but that is a consequence, not a cause.
And the race of the child is not necessarily the same as either parent.
No, the “cause” of “racism” is in-group preference. If you care for your child, because the child is necessarily of the same race as both parents, then it follows you necessarily care for your race by default. This is just common sense and intuitive on such a level that nobody questions or acknowledges it. Now the accusation and definitions of “racism” change over time. But that is a derivative, the consequence of, in-group preference.
Therefore, people can be accused of “racism”, based on modern definitions, for preferring their own kin.
Largly true.
False.
Well, just gauging by the responses that you have gotten, not to mention my own knowledge of logic and reasoning, it is obviously not all that “common” sense.
Also false.
Look at it this way:
If one of the children was wearing white and the other was wearing black, and the one you chose was wearing white, does that make you a white supremacist?
I can’t simplify it further.
To care for your child, is necessarily to care for your own race.
You and Void have it backward.
Again, assuming that you are not just joking around…
Tell us how you would distinguish forward from backward in such cases as this without appealing to merely your “common sense instinct”? And if you cannot, how do you know that it isn’t you who “has it backward”?
Because race is the consequence of mating and not the other way around.
That didn’t answer the question. I asked of the process for distinguishing backward vs forward … concerning any issue, not merely race issues (which seem to be an obsession of yours).
And yes, mating causes race. That was never the question.
The question is whether choosing one’s own child to save is the same as preferring one race over another. What of those who bear children that are not of either race, the new “Gray Race”?
Forward means that race proceeds from family.
And earlier I mentioned to Void that race-mixing, the exception does not dispute the rule. Race-mixing and miscegenation are recent in history, or at points in history with explanation, such as one nation conquering another, or conquering and occupying a previously foreign territory. Generally, commonly, the “races” congregate with each-other, because organisms naturally trust their own kind, and those that look, act, and smell/taste like each-other.
It is a dubious fact that two people, of distinct races, like a white male and black female, will procreate a racially ambiguous offspring. However, despite that, the “race” maybe questionable although the rules stay the same. You could call it a new race if you wanted.