Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pierre the Great

"Reasonable Accommodations" Discussion

Recommended Posts

Missed the point, that's not against those already in, but those who would like to move there and adopt some "contreversial" behavior. You also, not only you but EVERYBODY, miss the point by always pointing out the "big scary" comportments like stoning. They just wrote an exhaustive list of behavior who will not be allowed in their municipality. They do not want to hide Christmas trees, to give prenatal courses where the men are forbidden, frost the windows of a gym because men can see through the window women wearing gym clothes. They also want to offer some meat in any cafeteria all year long and allow the woman doctors to cure all the men.

It's not about stoning, stoning is just the extreme limit of what has been done in the foreign countries. Herouxville, as anybody, don't expect this to happen.

It's more like: we already have rules and law, don't try to change things.

Try tohave an examination of the prostate made by a woman in Afghanistan...

I'll get back to this later but I've got class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missed the point, that's not against those already in, but those who would like to move there and adopt some "contreversial" behavior. You also, not only you but EVERYBODY, miss the point by always pointing out the "big scary" comportments like stoning. They just wrote an exhaustive list of behavior who will not be allowed in their municipality. They do not want to hide Christmas trees, to give prenatal courses where the men are forbidden, frost the windows of a gym because men can see through the window women wearing gym clothes. They also want to offer some meat in any cafeteria all year long and allow the woman doctors to cure all the men.

It's not about stoning, stoning is just the extreme limit of what has been done in the foreign countries. Herouxville, as anybody, don't expect this to happen.

It's more like: we already have rules and law, don't try to change things.

Try tohave an examination of the prostate made by a woman in Afghanistan...

I think you missed the point bud.

The town was creating laws that are illegal they were inesence racially profiling something my good old state is famous for. It was racist for targeting a specific group.

Here's an example.

My town is called Lutheranville

I decree that everyone must adhere to our local customs or be evicted

We are lutherans, only lutherans allowed

only Evangelical lutherans allowed

No atheists allowed it is illegal

absolutely no catholics

anyone who is observing lent by having a fish fry will be fined and given a notice to be in court

Everyone must have a picture of Martin Luther in their house and his book on their table.

Any mention of the pope or any other "heretic" is illegal

Everyone must be at church on Sundays

Any fake idols of catholicism will be smashed. It will not be tolerated.

No polygamy

No mormons

Being a mormon results in a million dollar fine

jehovah witness is banned

in order to be a good lutheranvillian you must follow the laws

---

Igmar Bergman films must be played at all times in the main centre square.

flowers must be placed by all citizens at the 100 metre tall statue to Olof Palme.

Oh wait that's Pierreville. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is racism? If a person dislikes another culture because of a certain cultural trait but also simultaneously likes another beneficial aspect of their culture, are they racist? What is racist? Considering this sociological soup we all live in and based on our own biases, who is qualified to even gauge the question of racism? The person who understands it will never get through to the people who don't. But, how do you teach someone something they have never experienced?

So I'll ask everyone. And every answer will be wrong and right at the same time. What is racism? If we could truly answer it then we would overcome it. No amount of independent theory or opinion can solve it because it's still just independent opinion and someone will be "racist" (resistant) to the idea. They shall not hear for with no understanding, there's no explanation possible. Where there is understanding, there's no explanation necessary.

Edited by Athlétique.Canadien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you missed the point bud.

The town was creating laws that are illegal they were inesence racially profiling something my good old state is famous for. It was racist for targeting a specific group.

Here's an example.

My town is called Lutheranville

I decree that everyone must adhere to our local customs or be evicted

We are lutherans, only lutherans allowed

only Evangelical lutherans allowed

No atheists allowed it is illegal

absolutely no catholics

anyone who is observing lent by having a fish fry will be fined and given a notice to be in court

Everyone must have a picture of Martin Luther in their house and his book on their table.

Any mention of the pope or any other "heretic" is illegal

Everyone must be at church on Sundays

Any fake idols of catholicism will be smashed. It will not be tolerated.

No polygamy

No mormons

Being a mormon results in a million dollar fine

jehovah witness is banned

in order to be a good lutheranvillian you must follow the laws

---

Igmar Bergman films must be played at all times in the main centre square.

flowers must be placed by all citizens at the 100 metre tall statue to Olof Palme.

Oh wait that's Pierreville. ;)

I think your missing his point and not doing your own justice by creating such an extreme example that isn't even close to being similar to what's happened in that town.

Frankly, the entire world is too politically correct and walks on too many egg shells for fear of the "race card" or some similar left wing driven baloney. Truly, left wing extremists are all nuts...as much as right wing extremists...but no one ever says anything about the left wing crazies. We just seem to let them dominate/run our media and institutions.

The fact of the matter is that many of the fears people have in regards to ethnic distrusts is based in truth. Certainly some people take this issues to extremes and are clearly racist. They can't see beyond their overall, and absolute, distrust and hate to see the positives in a person or culture. However, even the slightest admittance to seeing those truths about a culture will have a large, also extreme group, label you a racist.

I also have a question that I think is worth debating here. Why is racial profiling bad? I'm not talking about the kind of racial profiling that singles out an entire group of people randomly for fictitious crimes...like pulling over a minority and simply searching them for drugs. I'm talking about racially profiling a group of people in a specific neighborhood/area when a crime has been, or will be, committed by someone within that group. To me, that's simply preventative maintenance for society at large. It's a tool that can be used to effectively solve and prevent crime. Certainly it can, and has been, abused as a tool BUT if done right it can be very effective and based on logic and reason rather then emotional fears about a culture/race.

Edited by Zowpeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An unlikely name popped up Tuesday at provincial public hearings looking into reasonable accommodation for religious minorities in Quebec: Saku Koivu.

Lawyer Guy Bertrand, a separatist-turned-federalist-turned-separatist-again, dropped the gloves about the Montreal Canadiens' captain's lack of fluency in French.

Bertrand was critical of the Finnish-born Koivu's failure "to respect the right of Quebecers to be served in French."

http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/hockey...39-03bf6bda0528

Ok, come on. Leave Koivu alone, these hearings are not supposed to be some kind of a witchhunt against people who don't speak French, regardless of whether they're Montreal Canadiens or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, the entire world is too politically correct and walks on too many egg shells for fear of the "race card" or some similar left wing driven baloney. Truly, left wing extremists are all nuts...as much as right wing extremists...but no one ever says anything about the left wing crazies. We just seem to let them dominate/run our media and institutions.

:clap:

I also have a question that I think is worth debating here. Why is racial profiling bad? I'm not talking about the kind of racial profiling that singles out an entire group of people randomly for fictitious crimes...like pulling over a minority and simply searching them for drugs. I'm talking about racially profiling a group of people in a specific neighborhood/area when a crime has been, or will be, committed by someone within that group. To me, that's simply preventative maintenance for society at large. It's a tool that can be used to effectively solve and prevent crime. Certainly it can, and has been, abused as a tool BUT if done right it can be very effective and based on logic and reason rather then emotional fears about a culture/race.

:clap: Absolutely. Done right, racial profiling is perfectly fine. If purple people commit more crime than other people, then why shouldn't more attention be given to purple people? Don't pull them over for no reason, but just keep an eye on them moreso than you would other people, since the stats say they are more likely to commit a crime. Just don't go to far and concentrate only on purple people, at the expense of not watching other questionable people with other colored skin. I mean, if you see a purple guy in a suit and a pink person in gang apparel, obviously ignore the racial profiling about purple people and watch the guy more likely to commit a crime, the gang banger as opposed to the business man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:clap:

:clap: Absolutely. Done right, racial profiling is perfectly fine. If purple people commit more crime than other people, then why shouldn't more attention be given to purple people? Don't pull them over for no reason, but just keep an eye on them moreso than you would other people, since the stats say they are more likely to commit a crime. Just don't go to far and concentrate only on purple people, at the expense of not watching other questionable people with other colored skin. I mean, if you see a purple guy in a suit and a pink person in gang apparel, obviously ignore the racial profiling about purple people and watch the guy more likely to commit a crime, the gang banger as opposed to the business man.

That is absolutely the stupidest reasoning I've heard since grade school. Nothing exist in a vacuum. If purple skinned people commit more crime, and purple people are disadvantaged because of racism, then racial profiling only adds to the racism.

Read up on American history .... Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives have been subjugated since the get go. They have always been the poorest segment of the population, received the least justice, the least education, and have been lynched, raped, pillaged etc. etc. This has way more to do with crime than the colour of their skin! Crime is only related to skin colour in so far as skin colour affects the way that people are treated.

Racial profiling is just another arrow in the quiver of a racist mentality! People like you think that they know the answer to the chicken egg question ... and it is usually the answer the facilitates the continuation of their own racist tendencies.

It constantly shocks me what come out of your head!

BTW, who changed the title from one that was descriptive to this totally innocuous one that means ABSOLUTELY nothing! I can guess ... and I bet it is more politically motivated than it is an effect of sound moderating. I'm not a fan of this puckish style of modding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, who changed the title from one that was descriptive to this totally innocuous one that means ABSOLUTELY nothing! I can guess ... and I bet it is more politically motivated than it is an effect of sound moderating. I'm not a fan of this puckish style of modding!

Perhaps you should get the facts straight before you start taking below the belt shots at anyone. I wasn't the one who closed this thread nor the one who changed the title.

Racial profiling is just another arrow in the quiver of a racist mentality! People like you think that they know the answer to the chicken egg question ... and it is usually the answer the facilitates the continuation of their own racist tendencies.

What sense does that make? How does saying the egg came first or the chicken came first make any difference about a person? Furthermore, what do chickens have to do with racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you should get the facts straight before you start taking below the belt shots at anyone. I wasn't the one who closed this thread nor the one who changed the title.

I never pointed a finger at anyone ... who are you to presume who I am thinking about? Why are you always jumping to conclusions? :huh:

^_^

Nice side step of my counter-argument to your inane point btw. :clap:

What sense does that make? How does saying the egg came first or the chicken came first make any difference about a person? Furthermore, what do chickens have to do with racism?

I would continue this battle of wits with you, but I see you are unarmed. However, some parting advice:

Think first. Consider deeply. Look at all perspectives and consider previously unconsidered perspectives ... if new and unique connections are discerned, engage them instead of rejecting them as not the usual method of analysis. This is the way even a child learns to understand the world around her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is absolutely the stupidest reasoning I've heard since grade school. Nothing exist in a vacuum. If purple skinned people commit more crime, and purple people are disadvantaged because of racism, then racial profiling only adds to the racism.

That's exactly why I said if done correctly it is fine. If the racial profile is driven by racism, then it is wrong. That's why I talked about not doing crap like pulling over a car only because it's driven by a purple person. Like in my example, if you see a purple skinned person (say purple skin people account for 30% of crime) and a pink person (pink people commit 10% of crime) are both walking down the street, everything else equal. It's common sense to pay more attention to the purple person than the pink person. I'm not saying completely ignore the pink person or anything, not at all. Once it becomes a case of only targeting a certain race, then the racial profiling has crossed the line.

Being disadvantaged doesn't give people the right to commit crime. Never have I said that skin color is the reason for crime. I realize that factors in life is what leads a person to crime. That's why I conceded I'd pay more attention to a pink person than a purple person if the pink person looked more likely to commit a crime. If the racial profiling is such that it targets people at the expense of stopping crime by other races, then it is wrong. As long as people aren't going out of their way to racially profile, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I never pointed a finger at anyone ... who are you to presume who I am thinking about? Why are you always jumping to conclusions? :huh:

You used the phrase " 'puckish' style of moderation." I'm the only moderator who has "puck" in his username. Who else would you be targeting with such a comment?

Think first. Consider deeply. Look at all perspectives and consider previously unconsidered perspectives ... if new and unique connections are discerned, engage them instead of rejecting them as not the usual method of analysis. This is the way even a child learns to understand the world around her.

Thanks for answering my question, I guess even you can't explain it. If I could think of a way the two were connected, then I wouldn't have asked how they were. I honestly do not see how thinking eggs come first or thinking chickens comes first has any connection with a person's thoughts on racial profiling. Abortion is about the only issue I can think of that is the least bit connected to the chicken or the egg question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you really want me to elucidate your lack of insight, here we go:

First: puckish -- It is a real word.

adjective

he gave her a puckish grin mischievous, naughty, impish, roguish, playful, arch, prankish; informal waggish.

I was thinking of: roguish, impish, and mischievous. Check it out in a dictionary if you don't believe me. They are quite easy to use, and can even be found on-line. I can suggest some links if you are unfamiliar with the concept.

second: Chicken or the egg. What came first, when speaking of these purple people? A) That they have a greater occurrence of crime statistically, or B) That they have been subjugated, and treated as second class citizens; which has resulted in some percentage of the population deciding to ignore the laws that are put in place to subjugate them, and to fend for themselves by their own rules. So, chicken: greater percentage of criminality within a given population; Egg: subjugation of that given population by a governing population.

You seem to be not looking at the "our laws and society subjugating them" part of the equation, or at least are somewhat justifying it by suggesting that racial profiling is justifiable in the face of crime. But, now consider this, what if the way they have been treated has lead to them having very little options but to commit crime (if they want to enjoy the same fruits that the ruling skin tone enjoy - purple and pink was it ... interesting, that is kinda like black and white. White people are often referred to as pink, whereas very black people are said to have a blueish/purple tone about them ... not too much of a stretch too see where your stereotypical views evolved from)?

Furthermore, racial profiling actually antagonizes the target population, and thus, perpetuates frustration, anger, resentment, etc ... which can fuel aggressive behaviour. So, again ... what came first, the crime or the antagonizing? Chicken/egg?

You seem to be in favour of Chicken ... whereas I realize that there is an unhealthy vicious circle that needs to be broken.

Capiche? If it is too much for you to digest in one sitting, reject the urge to respond, and just let it percolate. You will feel much better, I assure you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you really want me to elucidate your lack of insight, here we go:

First: puckish -- It is a real word.

adjective

he gave her a puckish grin mischievous, naughty, impish, roguish, playful, arch, prankish; informal waggish.

I was thinking of: roguish, impish, and mischievous. Check it out in a dictionary if you don't believe me. They are quite easy to use, and can even be found on-line.

c'mon Bacchus, don't be obtuse.

I was the one that closed the thread, not Puck, because I felt that some posters were being trollish (not pointing a finger at you). Other mods disagreed, so the thread was re-opened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
c'mon Bacchus, don't be obtuse.

I was the one that closed the thread, not Puck, because I felt that some posters were being trollish (not pointing a finger at you). Other mods disagreed, so the thread was re-opened.

Didn't think you were. I came to this thread because I found the topic interesting. I have been keeping an eye on it. I find the topic of racism interesting, its shades, manifestations, etc; especially when it is based on a survey of Canadian people. Then I see that not only has the thread been buried under an innocuous title, but that one of the most high profile mods on this site is suggesting racial profiling as a legitimate crime prevention technique. Abhorrent attitude, bordering on, and very often crossing over to, racism. In the very least it is stereotypical, and I'm sure people would be up in arms if posters started being stereotypical/racist about french quebeckers. Why is it not so bad when we talk about purple/black people? This shift in tolerance by the mod squad is in itself ethically questionable.

Funny that you think I am being obtuse ... Fanpuck claims to be able to read between the lines when I wrote Puckish, but yet he can't take two seconds to consider my well argued position. If anyone is being obtuse, which of course is the tendency to be slow to understand, it is Fanpuck ... not I. He is the one that keeps on writing, "what are you talking about" without considering first (most of his posts come a whopping 5 minutes after mine ... and for a guy who cannot look up a word like Puckish, it is not enough time to consider my "radically liberal" position).

BTW, if you really think I am feigning stupidity, please show me where ... and if you mention that Puckish section again, I will fall off my chair laughing! :lol:

btw, if your looking for trolling, I will present this as exhibit A. from FanPuck:

"but just keep an eye on them moreso than you would other people".

Like that isn't controversial .... lets keep an eye on dem blacks, and dem yellers, and dem orangy mexeeecans! They got crime in their blooooooood!

How would you like to have people "keeping an eye on you" because you spoke French, had brown hair, or some other irrelevant feature that some people made some erroneous connection to crime?!?

:puke:

Friggin' disgusting!

Edited by Fanpuck33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First: puckish -- It is a real word.

adjective

he gave her a puckish grin mischievous, naughty, impish, roguish, playful, arch, prankish; informal waggish.

I was thinking of: roguish, impish, and mischievous. Check it out in a dictionary if you don't believe me. They are quite easy to use, and can even be found on-line. I can suggest some links if you are unfamiliar with the concept.

Don't patronize me. The question is why you chose to use such an obscure word when so many others are better known? Why use a word that could so obviously be seen as pointing the finger if that's not what you intended to do? It seems like too much of a coincidence to me that you chose to use the word "puckish" in this situation.

second: Chicken or the egg. What came first, when speaking of these purple people? A) That they have a greater occurrence of crime statistically, or B) That they have been subjugated, and treated as second class citizens; which has resulted in some percentage of the population deciding to ignore the laws that are put in place to subjugate them, and to fend for themselves by their own rules. So, chicken: greater percentage of criminality within a given population; Egg: subjugation of that given population by a governing population.

You seem to be not looking at the "our laws and society subjugating them" part of the equation, or at least are somewhat justifying it by suggesting that racial profiling is justifiable in the face of crime. But, now consider this, what if the way they have been treated has lead to them having very little options but to commit crime (if they want to enjoy the same fruits that the ruling skin tone enjoy . . . Furthermore, racial profiling actually antagonizes the target population, and thus, perpetuates frustration, anger, resentment, etc So, again ... what came first, the crime or the antagonizing? Chicken/egg? . . . You seem to be in favour of Chicken ... whereas I realize that there is an unhealthy vicious circle that needs to be broken.

Thank you, that's all I asked for in the first place. I'm a math person, my mind focuses directly on the logical, not the symbolic. I now understand your comparison. I thought I was clear that I acknowledged that environment is the factor behind crime, not skin color. I'm not denying that experiencing racism doesn't play into the equation of why more people of one race turn to crime than another. What I'm saying is that doesn't excuse those people. If my parents beat me as a child, that doesn't mean I can beat my own kids when I have them.

That's why I'm saying racial profiling has to be done a specific way so as to not antagonize a given race. I don't think that the situations I have described are antagonizing anyone. I don't see how my examples would encourage the maintenance of the vicious circle. To me, racial profiling for the pure sake of race would add to the circle and is wrong, but if used fairly and correctly, i.e. for the sake of stopping crime, I don't see how it hurts.

(if they want to enjoy the same fruits that the ruling skin tone enjoy - purple and pink was it ... interesting, that is kinda like black and white. White people are often referred to as pink, whereas very black people are said to have a blueish/purple tone about them ... not too much of a stretch too see where your stereotypical views evolved from)?

Oh good grief. Give me a break. I chose the first two colors that came to my mind, stop seeing things that aren't there. I simply chose two colors so as not to be offensive about any particular race. Would you prefer that I switch it so that pink people commit more crime than purple people? I see the white/pink comparison, but never in my entire life have I ever heard a black person described as blue or purple. That seems preposterous to me.

Capiche? If it is too much for you to digest in one sitting, reject the urge to respond, and just let it percolate. You will feel much better, I assure you.

I guess that makes us equal for my comment about you not being able to explain the chicken or the egg thing. Otherwise, I don't see what that adds to the conversation.

How would you like to have people "keeping an eye on you" because you spoke French, had brown hair, or some other irrelevant feature that some people made some erroneous connection to crime?!?

:puke:

Friggin' disgusting!

If the cops pay more attention to me because blonde people commit more crimes than other hair colors, then so be it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd deal with it and accept it. Now if they start crapping on me by doing things like pulling me over just for being blonde, then we have a problem.

I think it's just like my Indian friends who are often mistaken for Middle Eastern people at airports. They don't like the treatment they have gotten in a few cases, which I will fully admit is often antaganistic, not of the variety of racial profiling I'm arguing for here. At the same time, they don't blame the people for it, since Middle Eastern terrorists are the ones most commonly targeting the United States. They admit they'd pay more attention to certain people if they, themselves were the ones working at the airport. Of course, the biggest problem in this case is that the terrorists aren't stupid, and certainly are bright enough to use racial profiling against us, by recruiting Asians or whites or blacks or whatever. That's why I'm saying racial profiling shouldn't happen at the expense of stopping crime only to antagonize a certain group. I'm in 100% agreement that the antagonism needs to stop. I'll be the first to say that the way racial profiling goes down right now is a bad thing, since it does antagonize groups for no reason other than skin. There's a big difference between keeping an eye on someone and strip searching them because of their race or skin color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the white/pink comparison, but never in my entire life have I ever heard a black person described as blue or purple. That seems preposterous to me.

2 mins searching on google: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m107..._55/ai_61619016

search for "blue" if you don't care to read it ... it is an interesting read.

Furthermore, your keeping an eye on a whole population because a small segment (you argued +10 over the average population) engages in crime more so than other demographics, annoys the hell out of the ones who are .... get ready for this .... innocent. What, are you gonna say you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet? Well, make yourself one of those eggs, and every time you went in to a store, an airport, went in to a bank, etc, someone was keeping a suspicious eye on you. How would that make you feel? I don't think that you can truly understand this .... it is friggin' annoying to be constantly presumed guilty until your actions prove otherwise -- and that proof last just as long as the next person casts their suspicious eye on them, and then the next, and then the next.

Sorry, I know you want to think otherwise, but you have racist tendencies. What you are arguing is like saying you should watch people with turbans just because they may be terrorists. There was a Canadian sent to Syria to be beaten, tortured, and confined because of this type of attitude that presume a certain race more susceptible to terrorism than other races (BTW, who blew-up Oklahoma?) ... and this Canadian was INNOCENT!

If you can see it, then you are myopic ... plane and simple ... and I hope that one day you feel the sting of racism against you for a short while so that you can understand the pressures that it can create.

I would also get in to a debate about the validity of a justice system that is itself unjust, but I would expect that the same type of obtuseness would develop. I know that the justice system in the US has improved in recent years, but it wasn't so long ago that Strange Black Fruit hung all over the trees in the Southern states --- not that long ago at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I know you want to think otherwise, but you have racist tendencies. What you are arguing is like saying you should watch people with turbans just because they may be terrorists. There was a Canadian sent to Syria to be beaten, tortured, and confined because of this type of attitude that presume a certain race more susceptible to terrorism than other races (BTW, who blew-up Oklahoma?) ... and this Canadian was INNOCENT!

I won't deny it, I don't think anyone has zero racist tendencies. It's natural for people to be wary of things that are different. The question is whether or not people act on the tendencies. I've had friends of varying ethnicities, so I tend not to act on my initial feelings. Am I less likely to go out of my way to speak to a white person than a black person? Probably. Chances are I'll have more in common with the white person. Does that make me a racist? Slightly, I guess. Do I automatically dislike someone or treat someone poorly because of race or skin? Not that I am aware of. Basically, I think I'm more open to white people, but not to an extent that I exclude blacks, hispanics, etc.

Take for instance something that happened to me a couple weeks ago subbing in a public school. This particular class had more black students than white. I felt more nervous than usual, because I was out of my element. I wasn't nervous simply because so many kids were black, but because I didn't know if I could relate to them. It was the cultural difference, not the racial difference. When the other teacher in the room had a student removed from class by security, the kid walked by giving us a death stare. I didn't feel scared because the kid was black, I felt scared because the kid was bigger than me and probably could have kicked my butt.

Also, for the hundredth time, your example about the Canadian is exactly why I think racial profiling, as it is done now, is wrong.

I would also get in to a debate about the validity of a justice system that is itself unjust, but I would expect that the same type of obtuseness would develop.

Haha, that's kind of funny. We both agree that the justice system isn't just, but for totally different reasons. But like you said, let's not get into that. It's like how Pierre and I both have a negative view on the future of the US, but for very different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Done right, racial profiling is perfectly fine. . . keep an eye on . . ."purple people". . . moreso [sic] than you would other people, since the stats say they are more likely to commit a crime.

There is so much wrong with that, but I understand it's the way many people think these days, sad . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racial Profiling:

Websters new millennium

the consideration of race when developing a profile of suspected criminals; by extension, a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups when seeking suspected criminal

from wiki

Racial profiling, also known as Racial Stereotyping, is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime.

basically a bunch of purple people live in a neighbourhood, police keep a closer eye on the purple people because they are prone for committing crimes. When in fact its not that they are born criminals it has more to do with their environment and how they've been treated by society. When you are seen as a "scar" on the community you begin to not trust anyone, you then rebel.

This happens in small towns as well where everyone knows each other. Except with a small town you just move. If you are a poor minority in a city you have no where to go.

-----

Powerful Groups can use their power to define situations in such a way that their power is reinforced.

Dominant groups use ethnic and racial definitions to enhance/maintain their power (vicious cycle of discrimination)

Prejudice--->discrimination----->disadvantages (the polite term)

Inequality:

1. The condition of being unequal.

2. An instance of being unequal.

3. Lack of equality, as of opportunity, treatment, or status.

4. Social or economic disparity: the growing inequality between rich and poor

1. Lack of equality, as of opportunity, treatment, or status.

2. Social or economic disparity: the growing inequality between rich and poor.

which then leads to

Uraban Decay- Urban decay is a process by which a city, or a part of a city, falls into a state of disrepair. It is characterized by depopulation, property abandonment, high unemployment, fragmented families, political disenfranchisement, crime, and desolate and unfriendly urban landscapes.

which then leads to total collapse of society.

Edited by Pierre the Great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the millionth time: I'm not denying circumstances lead to crime. I agree 100% with all of you that done like it is now, racial profiling is bad. When it's done to keep people down and done just to screw with people, it's not good. When people are screwed because of it, it's not good. Like Zowpeb said, in certain cases done fairly and justly, it can serve the desired effect. Basically, I see it like communism. In theory its great, the greater good is served. But in practice, it's very difficult to do and ends up screwing things up and causing more bad than it prevents.

You guys seem to ignore much of what I say and try to make inferences that I'm not trying to make and you guys think the same about me. No good can come from continuing like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dunno, the inequality in russia is worse now then it was in the soviet union. You have people living in shacks in siberia and the far east with no heat or running water.

go to mexico you'll see children walking the streets homeless, getting into crime.

Cuba there all in school, you won't see homeless people on the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shocking Truth

Well guys here I go again.....'

When I was a teen I moved from Sackville NS, a suburb of Halifax, to Balcarres Sask, town of 1000 60ml from Regina. One of the 1st questions I was asked by fellow HS students was why we hated blacks down east, I was shocked, This was prior to the racial fights in Cole Harbour High. I had grown up with blacks, scene segregation and its removal, there was a "black kids home" down the road when I was young, and never considered myself racist. Could it be?

After a time in this small community I became aware of the racism present there against the natives, to the locals it wasn't apparent but as an outsider it was blatant. I came to realize it was the same way we whites down east treated blacks.

More recently, I have friends in Ontario, just N of Toronto. They are seeing a huge influx of mideasterners. Whole new town going up over night. They are scared and are becoming racial in there thoughts and speach.

I see it in the west with the Orientals. It is still nationwide with the Natives, Ontario PQ, MidEast, and East coast Black. Canada is and always was full of racism, maybe more so than I have seen in my US travels. Difference is our laws seem to make the work place more even.

Oh, and there is no God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats so true johnnyhasbeen

Quebec in many ways is the "south" of Canada. I mean you had a political leader blaming the referendum on the "ethnic vote". And as in the case of this little town, a lot of little towns in the south do the same, except this time its "illegal immigrants".

or in my city its defacto segregation.

US the racism is more apparent.

Canada its hidden, nobody talks about it, its more "keeping to oneself".

There was an uproar over a facebook group made my someone from Duncan on the island. Duncan has a lot of first nations people. The group has thousands of members.

What's the group?

Its about a game supposedly everyone plays. "How many indians on the bridge" there's this bridge that the highway goes on. Everyone is like "oh I love playing that game, I always play it, I was taught it".

Then they say they're not racist. I'm sorry that's about as racist as you can get.

But no they don't think they're racist. lol

I think what saved Canada from going the US route is the Charter and laws and overall Canadian identity of being relaxed.

So Canada is like in the middle in the grey area. Yeah they have racist tendencies but, they won't act on it because

A: they despise voting

B: think government is pointless

C: can't make up there minds or are too stubborn

Public isn't willing to admit that they are racist but yet they consider themselves not racist so they embrace things like multiculturalism to stop it.

What the multiculturalism act really is for:

Interaction between groups can enhance or reduce conflict/racism (contact hypothesis)

What it is saying is that if you are only around one culture/race you don't know anything else so then you become worrisome of other people that are different.

How this works?: put a racist and an immigrant working together in a job that involves team work. Give them a year and those cultural biases die off and the racist becomes more accepting.

This is why in the beginning I said for anyone to go to another religion's place of worship. Get to know different people. You will change your outlook on life. You will become more accepting and understanding.

thread's gone full circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao.. I don't understand half the things he says but Bacchus is a beast. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and there is no God.

Since it's a different topic, I'll jump back in for more: Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since it's a different topic, I'll jump back in for more: Prove it.

What kind of logic is that?

Unless you're the second coming of Luna Lovegood, things don't exist until someone can prove that they do. Not the reverse.

With God, you can't prove either way, so any belief you have is pure faith and not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...