Canada Leads Boycott of U.N. Racism Farce

[myata]

Well, actually, you quoted Wikipedia. Still, you adamantly expect people to believe that the UN has now taken command of the English language and has published the new world dictionary.

No, but they can certainly define the agenda for the conference, and terminology around it (not "race" - one more time, and only for those seriously and persistently obtuse, but "racial discrimination"), of which those in attendance should be fully aware (unless they are that is, obtuse, naturally or otherwise), and bring their objections, if necessary, ie. how and why racial discrimination would be different, worse, less tolerable and so on, than the ethic one. To which we're coming in a minute:

Attacking and putting down a race would probably constitute abuse, as your targets are unable to do anything about their biological make-up. Doing the same, however, for an ethnicity may not be abusive; certain tenets of that culture may be antithetical to your own, and, unlike race, can be altered.

So, it's bad to attack somebody because of color of their skin, but may be OK if they are wearing a turban and have a different complexion? If you happen to believe that their culture is "antithetical"? Maybe this is one of the main reasons people in the UN made two definitions equivalent? So that there's no misconceptions? Because..

I think we'd agree that eradicating a race like Caucasians would be illogically cruel. Would you, though, qualify as abusive the forceful rejection of an ethnic tradition such as Sharia law?

That is what you belive. Some people on the other side may think that two. So, if it's OK to abuse people of "antithetical" ethnicity, both should be justified in their righteous acts. Correct? I mean, between "you", and "them", who's there to decide who's righteous, and who - "antithetical"? Your god? Or maybe, theirs? Ethnic wars, cleansings, even genocides are justified if perpetrators happen to be believe their victims to be "antithetical". I don't think there's any confusion about why discrimination by any physical trait should be considered intolerable, no matter which one. The alternative is not even slippery slope, but direct chute down to justifying any ethnic crimes.

Which we, here in freedom and right loving West happen to condemn. Sometimes.

[Oleg Bach]

I have the right to say I don't like low level Italian culture...that they are base and stupid...and if I don't like badly raised blacks that decide to shoot up the town _ I should be able to use the N word in that case - The UN - is a farce - they are full of these crazed social engineers who look at the whole planet as a bunch of apes - and THEY only know how to reprogram us..to hell with them...when they start doing what the UN was designed for and show courage and real conviction instead of loathing and contempt for humanity - then maybe - just maybe we can respect this group.

[myata]

Yeah right. I don't like you, you look weird and "antithetical" to me. Bang. Ahead to the glorious past. Troglodytes.

[g_bambino]

So, it's bad to attack somebody because of color of their skin, but may be OK if they are wearing a turban and have a different complexion? If you happen to believe that their culture is "antithetical"?

You're not paying attention.

Troglodytes.

Ah, we've reached the personal insult level. It would seem to me that the troglodyte would be the one who can't grasp the nuances of a rational argument and formulate a response in kind, releasing instead torrents of emotional and semi-comprehensible grunting.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited May 5, 2009 by g_bambino

[myata]

Shall I take it as a token of capitulation, at least in the context of logical argument? So far, you failed to answer these two questions, so I have to post them one more time (notice a trend - I had to post the quote related to racial discrimination no less than 3 (three) times. Sigh):

1) why discrimination by one set of physical traits is different or "better" or "more justifiable" than by another;

and

2) if we allow discrimination by physical traits of a certain ethnical group, could that group also be justified to discriminate too (against us, or maybe another group). No matter how potentially "antithetical" they are also conscient species and therefore could / would apply the same argument.

Indeed hiding behind imaginary insults is another winning tactic, apologies for forgeting it in the aforementioned array of key arguments (selective seeing / reading, refusal to participate in discussions inspired by our own moralizing and so on) that apparently sets us so far above everybody else.

[g_bambino]

So far, you failed to answer these two questions, so I have to post them one more time...

One wonders which discussion it is you're engaged in; the questions you pose are pointless because they refer to nothing that's so far been said (not by me, anyway). How am I supposed to know "why discrimination by one set of physical traits is different or 'better' or 'more justifiable' than by another"? I never said it was.

I'll admit though, I wasn't aware you considered "troglodyte" to be a compliment. But then, your take on the English language is just so... well... wierd.

[myata]

Attacking and putting down ..... Doing the same, however, for an ethnicity may not be abusive; certain tenets of that culture may be antithetical to your own ..."

Guess this rounds it up as far as the discussion of racial and ethnic discrimination goes, but you're entirely free to engage into any analyses around English, or any other, language.

[Oleg Bach]

The more seriously you take the UN - the more authority you give this body. They can not even stop a common African genocide let alone curb racism.

[g_bambino]

Guess this rounds it up as far as the discussion of racial and ethnic discrimination goes,

No really. What it does do, however, is demonstrate your approach to debate: selectively pick out quotations, manipulate them, and then misread them. What I'm starting to become convinced of is that your bais is so strong that you will warp language to suit it, so that you may see everywhere you look the concepts you hate. If you were able to cast that aside for just one moment and read carefully what I wrote, using the established linguistic syntax and word definitions, you'd realise that what you're accusing me of actually isn't there. I encourage you to give it a try.

[myata]

However, there's nothing you can contribute to the substance of the matter at this point?

[Oleg Bach]

However, there's nothing you can contribute to the substance of the matter at this point?

Don't dismiss so quickly - there must be something somewhere? Look deeper and don't allow your ego to out weight your good judgement.

[myata]

What kind of "depth" can be found in "putting down" people of "antithetical" ethnics? How far do one have to travel down this road before hitting Holocaust, Rwanda, and such?

[g_bambino]

However, there's nothing you can contribute to the substance of the matter at this point?

You've framed a statement in the form of a question, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. If I can make a guess at it, I'll respond that, by my interpretation, I've already presented a fair amount of substance; it now remains up to you whether you wish to acknowledge the reality of it as it actually is.

I put a question to you that was intended to seek out clarification of your attitudes: Would you qualify as abusive the forceful rejection of an ethnic tradition such as Sharia law? Don't assume a method of force, and don't redefine the word "ethnic"; just imagine that Sharia law is propogating in your society and tell me what reaction you would have.

_{[ed. sp.]}

Edited May 6, 2009 by g_bambino

[myata]

Another creative term, "forceful rejection". Whatever it could mean?

Well if somebedy's actually forcing you to obey Sharia law, could it be that perhaps they're finding your ethnic group "antithetical" and are attempting to "put you down"? What's good for the goose, works for gander, why not?

[Argus]

So you don't have courage even take a look at the problems US have,

You have not established that the US has ANY problems. Posting a lot of crap you dug up from God only knows where, without telling us who it's from or when or anything about their sources is simply a wate of time.

[g_bambino]

Well if somebedy's actually forcing you to obey Sharia law, could it be that perhaps they're finding your ethnic group "antithetical" and are attempting to "put you down"? What's good for the goose, works for gander, why not?

Exactly.

[normanchateau]

Whose definition? Yours?

Given your suggestion that I might benefit from the acquisition of literary skills, let's see if I am capable of summarizing your points thus far rather than merely caricaturing them, which would have been less challenging:

(1) Israel is guilty of "racism" by your definition of the word racism.

(2) Your definition of racism contradicts English language dictionaries because, to quote you, "...it's simply too bad that your decades old dictionary wouldn't reflect that simple fact."

(3) While the UN does not officially define the term racism, it supports your definition of the word racism.

Have I accurately summarized your points?

[myata]

If we're really bent on seeking the truth in the lingustic analyses.

According to the quoted source (that references the original source), the UN defines the term "racial discrimination" as equivalent to ethinic discrimination. Common language term "racism" isn't defined by the UN, but I would argue that for any imaginable reason there's no point in distinguishing discrimination against individuals by ethnics and race, or any other external trait for that matter. It may create impression, in some minds, that one sort of such discrimination would be "different" or "better" or even acceptable in some circumstances (such as e.g. "antithetical" group, whoever it may happen to be). And I have yet to hear convincing arguments (or in fact, any arguments, please feel free to contribute) otherwise.

According to my interpretation of publicly available information, Israel perpetrates ethnic discrimination, and therefore, racial discrimination in the occupied territories, and these actions would legitimately fall under the scope of the conference, unlike homosexuality or other "freedoms" (terms in quotes relate to semantics used for political gain, moralizing to others, etc, as opposed to their genuine meaning - m.). No matter how much we wanted to pretend otherwise, or not notice.

[g_bambino]

I would argue that for any imaginable reason there's no point in distinguishing discrimination against individuals by ethnics and race, or any other external trait for that matter. It may create impression, in some minds, that one sort of such discrimination would be "different" or "better" or even acceptable in some circumstances (such as e.g. "antithetical" group, whoever it may happen to be).

Well, that provides the rest of the answer to my question: you will accept all aspects of all ethnic traditions, including even those that are themselves bigoted and oppressive, in order to simply avoid being discriminatory (you would, of course, incorrectly use the word "racist"). How misguided and hypocritical.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Common language term "racism" isn't defined by the UN, but I would argue that for any imaginable reason there's no point in distinguishing discrimination against individuals by ethnics and race, or any other external trait for that matter. It may create impression, in some minds, that one sort of such discrimination would be "different" or "better" or even acceptable in some circumstances (such as e.g. "antithetical" group, whoever it may happen to be). And I have yet to hear convincing arguments (or in fact, any arguments, please feel free to contribute) otherwise.

Well if that be the case, the state has already made such a distinction quite "acceptabe" in the form of gender discrimination and segregation codified in law, and upheld by the courts as in the public interest. We can see many examples in public accommodation, education, military service, etc., etc.

[myata]

Discrimination against, codified in law? Certainly not aware of it being "upheld in public interest". Could you be more specific? If you want to be linguistically precise, that is.

To g_bambino:

Once discrimination by ethnicity is considered acceptable, in principle, the specific rationale wouldn't matter. Because there's no absolute, independent rationale for defining "bigoted and oppressing" ethnics. It's in the eye of the beholder. They look "bigoted and oppressive", to me. Bang.

[bush_cheney2004]

Discrimination against, codified in law? Certainly not aware of it being "upheld in public interest". Could you be more specific? If you want to be linguistically precise, that is.

I've already provided specific examples wherein the state has codified discrimination and segregation based on gender, clearly making the "distinction" acceptable and in the public interest (e.g. public and private "rest rooms")

[g_bambino]

Once discrimination by ethnicity is considered acceptable, in principle, the specific rationale wouldn't matter. Because there's no absolute, independent rationale for defining "bigoted and oppressing" ethnics. It's in the eye of the beholder. They look "bigoted and oppressive", to me.

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.

[Guest Kiddo]

Canada: Funny little something

Hey! That had to be an old vintage joke about Canada,

“Canadians had a good opportunity to be the most fortunate nation in the world. They could have French cookery, English government and American technologies. Instead, they have French government, English technologies and American fast food.”

I think this joke may be continued like this,

”Vancouver was meant to be ‘Door to Asia’. It turned out to be a through passage for all slant-eyes, chinos ousted all native Canadians from there.

Ukrainian immigrants could have brought splendid Ukrainian baths to Canada. They brought Ukrainian pocky hookers and pig sweat.

Georgians are famous for their heavenly choiring. Chechens are best in lezginka. Canadian Georgians and Chechens are mafia and dope peddlers.

[myata]

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