|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 5-5-2010 14:37, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> On 5-5-2010 13:32, Warp wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |