Canada Leads Boycott of U.N. Racism Farce

[myata]

Of course discrimination is subjective; congratulations on stating the obvious. The point remains, however, that all you've personally demonstrated is a conflicting desire to accept in others what it is you yourself demand we avoid; in fact, you've just contradicted yourself by admitting you may find some ethnic traditions bigoted and oppressive - shame on you for being so racist! I'm still interested to hear how you would reconcile such duplicity in real life situations.

No I've never admitted that, but I'm sorry to say it's a limitation in somebody's comprehension skills (inability to understand irony and other subtler means of expression. It's OK, nothing serious).

All I'm saying is that one either does not accept ethnic discrimination in priniciple, and any form, or looses any claim to calling specific instances of it illegitimate. One cannot credibly say that this ethnic abuse is wrong, but that one - OK, because it's based on one's own perspective, and from the receiving side it'd probably be the exact opposite, so both would be justified in perpetrating abuse, for a long, long time. Just what we see. No surprise.

[bush_cheney2004]

You haven't really provided anything, and public restrooms have nothing to do with it, but I guess it doesn't matter, right?

It matters to the people it affects, and in the case of something as simple as public accommodation (rest rooms) that means folks like transgenders. The point is that distinctions for different grades of discrimination are defined and upheld in the public interest by governments and societies around the world.

It is simply not good enough precision to claim that such distinctions cannot / are not made every day.

[myata]

Of course! When our "moral" position is called into question by the same criteria we like to apply to others, we like to muddy up waters with issues of homosexuals, transgenders, and other "freedoms". See, if you're like us, absolutely and 100%, you'd be with us. No, you'd be us. And if you're not, there would be a difference, we'll call it "a freedom" and use it as a pretext to accuse you of anything we like (and excuse us of anything we do). Smart. But oh so old and very, very unoriginal.

I'm still not exactly clear what kind of discrimination against trasgenders is upheld in public interest, perhaps you can clarify your thoughts on the matter - but maybe in a different thread?

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course! When our "moral" position is called into question by the same criteria we like to apply to others, we like to muddy up waters with issues of homosexuals, transgenders, and other "freedoms".

Not muddy at all....that you choose to ignore the obvious to unnecessarily protect your binary perspective on discrimination is curious.

See, if you're like us, absolutely and 100%, you'd be with us. No, you'd be us. And if you're not, there would be a difference, we'll call it "a freedom" and use it as a pretext to accuse you of anything we like (and excuse us of anything we do). Smart. But oh so old and very, very unoriginal.

Correct...that why "we" invented the word "discrimination". Even our technology has "descriminators" by design.

I'm still not exactly clear what kind of discrimination against trasgenders is upheld in public interest, perhaps you can clarify your thoughts on the matter - but maybe in a different thread?

Sorry, but you cannot escape that easily. Many laws and practices uphold "descrimination" for the public good, be it age, gender, disability, marital status, etc. It is incorrect to maintain that such distinctions do not exist when they are evident.

[myata]

Sorry, I've no time for obtuse discussions; nor for deliberate or otherwise substitution of subject ("Discrimination against, ..."); nor for endless repetition of obvious facts (discrimination is different from discrimination against, in particular, violent discrimination against ethnic group, that is the subject of this thread), repeat 1,000 times, overlooked questions questions we forgot to answer - in our innocence, of course (specific examples of disrimination against, by physical principle and in public interest), obvious statements noticied only from the n+1-th attempt (reading disability?) ("AGAINST"), and so on, and etc, and yada, and blah. In this kind of "discussions" you folks can absolutely and uncontestably consider yourselves gold medal winners and world champions.

Edited May 7, 2009 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, I've no time for obtuse discussions; nor for deliberate or otherwise substitution of subject ("Discrimination against, ..."); nor for endless repetition of obvious facts (discrimination is different from discrimination against, in particular, violent discrimination against ethnic group, that is the subject of this thread), repeat 1,000 times. In this kind of "discussions" you folks can absolutely and uncontestably consider yourselves gold medal winners and world champions.

As you wish.....many laws and practices uphold "descrimination against" for the public good, be it age, gender, disability, marital status, etc. It is incorrect to maintain that such distinctions do not exist when they are evident.

"In particular" will not save you from your own tangled web.

[myata]

Of course until you provide previously requested (on multiple occasions, shall we add) specific examples of

1) discrimination against individual based only on their visible physical traits being upheld in public interests;

and

2) violence against individual based only on their visible physical traits being perpetrated, or upheld, or excused, for the same;

there will be no discussion of my "tangled web" of otherwise. Not that I'd abandon my previously stated position (discrimination against individual based only on their visible physical traits should is wrong, regardless of the nature of traits), but we should have those (specific examples) for the record all the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course until you provide previously requested (on multiple occasions, shall we add) specific examples of

1) discrimination against individual based only on their visible physical traits being upheld in public interests;

I'm sorry...I thought you were mature enough to understand such delicacies when it comes to gender, trans-sexuals, disabilities, etc. (Of course, I have to remember that we are in the land that actually defines the silly term "visible minority".)

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Edited May 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

Of course, yes, certainly, please do spell. That's being asked like a few times already (three; five? I lost count). Such a delicate nature.. straight from Les Institutes des Ingenues ... or is it, forgetful? Whatever.

[g_bambino]

No I've never admitted that.

Because you've never said so directly doesn't mean you haven't admitted it.

You've clearly argued throughout this thread that ethnic intolerance in any form is equivalent to and as unacceptable as racism, thereby entirely equating it with abuse. Yet, on the other hand, you've admitted that others may maintain ethno-cultural traditions that you would judge as antithetical to your own, thus yourself committing your version of racism (discrimination based on ethnicity). One wonders, then, if faced with a person who’s ethno-cultural tenets have taught him to oppress all women, for example, you would choose to be a “racist” and put up resistance to those beliefs, or would choose to hypocritically allow his bigotry in order not to be “racist”.

This conundrum you’ve created stems only from your desire to use character assassination as a method of silencing criticism; using your interpretations, anyone opposing an ethnic precept is immediately labeled as a racist – amongst the most odious accusations one can be hit with in our society – from which it follows that the person is also abusive. The equation, however, is deeply flawed, as ethnicity is sociological, while race is biological; the latter is inherent in our very tissue, the former is merely belief. Using these most widely accepted definitions, it follows that you cannot be racist for opposing someone’s thinking. As ethnicity exists only through thought, it is therefore not racist to oppose an ethnic principle. And, since racism is a form of malevolent mistreatment, opposing a particular ethnic norm is consequently not a form of abuse, despite your irrational claims to the contrary.

[DogOnPorch]

Well said, g_bambino.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, yes, certainly, please do spell. That's being asked like a few times already (three; five? I lost count). Such a delicate nature.. straight from Les Institutes des Ingenues ... or is it, forgetful? Whatever.

Here Ya go....lots of juicy state sponsored "descrimination against" issues right at home in the land of "visible minorities", including "trannies".

http://www.caw.ca/en/services-departments-...gal-history.htm

Edited May 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

You've clearly argued throughout this thread that ethnic intolerance in any form is equivalent to and as unacceptable as racism, thereby entirely equating it with abuse.

Correct.

Yet, on the other hand, you've admitted that others may maintain ethno-cultural traditions that you would judge as antithetical to your own,

Correct.

thus yourself committing your version of racism (discrimination based on ethnicity).

Wrong. If I don't like the way certain people live, I'll attempt to not live there. Maybe not even to go there, or have any dealings with official representatives of that society. I will not attempt to discriminate against individuals simply because of the fact of their ethnicity. This is still wrong, and in fact, absurd. You may have a dissident from that culture that shares the same views with yourself, but you'd still be bound to discriminate against them, because of their ethnicity.

One wonders, then, if faced with a person who’s ethno-cultural tenets have taught him to oppress all women, for example, you would choose to be a “racist” and put up resistance to those beliefs, or would choose to hypocritically allow his bigotry in order not to be “racist”.

This is a complex question, because there many types and levels of discrimination, abuse, and violence. I think the place to start is to recognize discrimination in all forms, but to never create it ourselves, at least in the forms that we already know. Such as racial discrimination (including discrimination by ethnicity), sexual and all other kinds. This is definitely the place to start, and get busy with it for a few generations. We simply aren't in any credible position to instruct others about their faults, while we still have this far less than stellar record ourselves; and until we get our own act together, I doubt there would be many interested students to our incessant moralizing.

This conundrum you’ve created stems only from your desire to use character assassination as a method of silencing criticism;

That is the standard excuse, however there's no avoiding that observation that so many of the grossest mass crimes were perpetrated by ethnic lines. Could it be a simple logical consequence of accepting possibility of abusing individuals on the basis of their appearance?

using your interpretations, anyone opposing an ethnic precept is immediately labeled as a racist – amongst the most odious accusations one can be hit with in our society – from which it follows that the person is also abusive. The equation, however, is deeply flawed, as ethnicity is sociological, while race is biological; the latter is inherent in our very tissue, the former is merely belief.

I'm not going to enter into discussions of race and ethnicity, because it's irrelevant. If one excuses abuse and violence against individuals based solely on their appearance, it wouldn't matter one bit what those individual think, would it?

Using these most widely accepted definitions, it follows that you cannot be racist for opposing someone’s thinking.

We like to cloud it into some thoughtful formulas. This is also a familiar trend. So is it OK to abuse that particular individual, from "antithetical" ethnic group, before you even speak to them?

And if you happen to like them, as an individual, would it mean that they lost their "antithetical" ethnicity that very moment? Otherwise, you'd still be bound by your "antithetical" principle. Or that their ethnicity ceased to be antithetical to you? Would that feeling extend to other individuals, of the same ethnicity?

As ethnicity exists only through thought, it is therefore not racist to oppose an ethnic principle.

Is it racist (I really to not care much about this loaded term) to "oppose" an individual only for the fact of their ethnicity? Before you even have a chance to speak to them? Or, you would know exactly how an individual would think, based solely on the fact of their ethnic origin?

[ironstone]

I seem to recall that the US wasn't a big fan of trying to force South Africa to end apartheid either.

But regardless of Ahmadinejad's agenda, it seems foolish for everyone to boycott the entire conference based on the fact that some countries are going to say some negative things about Israel. It's a big conference, with a lot to achieve, but it seems that some countries are so desperate to silence any criticism of Israel (legitimate or otherwise), that they'll go to any lengths to deny critics of Israel a voice.

You cannot seriously compare apartheid in South Africa to how Israel treats it's non Jewish citizens.And furthermore,these people are not merely "critics" of Israel.They want to wipe Israel off the map as well as all Jewish people outside Israel.

[g_bambino]

I'm not going to enter into discussions of race and ethnicity, because it's irrelevant. If one excuses abuse and violence against individuals based solely on their appearance, it wouldn't matter one bit what those individual think, would it?

Well, this has all been for naught, and will go nowhere from here, so long as you obstinately refuse to stop talking about race and ethnicity as though the two concepts were interchangable.

[myata]

No, wrong again, it's not the race and ethnics what are equivalent and interchangeable, but discrimination against individuals by either. And, correct, I stated my arguments one time too many, so if they haven't settled in by now, there isn't probably a strong chance that they would, on yet another repetition.

By walking out, us, the freedom loving West, has spoken loud and clear that for us, it's not about dealing with discrimination, racial, ethnic, but about playing games, keeping scores, and saving our own. Will sure come right back the moment somebody from here steps out to read another cermon about peace and tolerance somewhere in a remote part of the world.

Edited May 8, 2009 by myata

[Oleg Bach]

The UN was once a very impressive and idealistic orgainization - now it is just stocked with careerist opportunists...who love the expense account - Look at their last leader - the black fellow who married the blonde blue eyed Swede...look at how badly his son behaved - all I saw in this man was some poor kid who was so happy to eat steak and sleep in an upscale hotel while he parroted policy that meant nothing...The UN - really has no authority ---- I have heard idiots in this country who quote UN "laws" as laws of OUR land - I repeat they have no power - and if you give it to them - give it time and you will be living like an animal..and they the steak eating -scotch drinking zoo keepers.

[myata]

The UN is only a reflection of the world, as it is - no better, and hardly worse. We're quick to find faults somewhere else, where at issue is our own hypocrisy, and persistent inability to live by the same standards we like to be applied to others. This incident is only another token to that, out of countless more.

[g_bambino]

No, wrong again, it's not the race and ethnics what are equivalent and interchangeable...

Hmmm...

I'm sure the broad definition of racism includes any sort of ethnic discrimination...

there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.

[W]e officially support ethnic discrimination aka racism...

Well if you can't understand "ethnic discrimination = racism"...

In re-reading the thread to find those comments of yours, I've noticed that you've been told by about five people that this interpretation of yours is wrong, and not one single other individual has been on your side. Yet, you still trumpet the same thing over and over. So, yes, I suppose you're right that if by this point you haven't accepted that you even may be mistaken, there's little sense in going round again. Thank you for at least being up front and honest about it.

[myata]

And why would I want to accept that if none, zilch, zero of the individuals aforementioned has managed to provide even resemblance of a logical argument to support their position? If things in this world were decided solely by a majority vote of (selected) individuals, we'd probably be still carrying clubs, and dressing into stinking hides. Or maybe, even swimming in the primordial soup, depending on when our ancestors would have decided to adopt that survival strategy (for better or for worse, they haven't. It's up to us now, whether we want to change that).

[g_bambino]

And why would I want to accept that if none, zilch, zero of the individuals aforementioned has managed to provide even resemblance of a logical argument to support their position?

I guess you also operate with a different definition of the word "logic".

[myata]

One can always win all contests, discussions and arguments. I'll share it, no charge (will be our little secret). Just convince yourself that you're right, on the side of good, fighting evil, etc, and walk out, proudly.

[g_bambino]

Just convince yourself that you're right...

It's already evident that such is your modus operandi. No need to state the obvious again, myata.

[myata]

Nicely done, quick learner! Well, looks like my travail here is finally done. Fewhhh!

Edited May 8, 2009 by myata

[g_bambino]

Nicely done...

Thank you.