On 5-5-2010 14:37, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 5-5-2010 13:32, Warp wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>>> and then claim - quite counterintuitively, that you don't see race.
>>>   I have made no such claim. (Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?)
>>>
>>>   What I have claimed is that to me race is exactly as important and
>>> unimportant as any other personal factor, such as gender, age, shoe size
>>> or hair color. I don't care about race any more or any less than about
>>> any of those other things. It's all the same.
> 
>> That is what Jim's 'you don't see race' also means. It is a way of 
>> expressing oneself. There is also a literal interpretation possible, but 
>> that is so preposterous that you can easily rule out that Jim meant that.
> 
>   You mean "you don't see race" was meant as "you don't consider race to
> be any more significant than any other feature"? Then I honestly don't
> understand what he meant with:
> 
> "That's because you keep saying "profiling based on race isn't a problem"
> and then claim - quite counterintuitively, that you don't see race."
> 
>   I honestly don't see how contrasting the two things are counterintuitive.
> Maybe he means something with "profiling based on race isn't a problem" that
> I didn't understand.

Because the first implies that you think that race may be important in 
same cases and the latter that you don't believe so.
But I can also see your confusion, because it might be about different 
people and different cases.

Post a reply to this message