Warp wrote:
>   You didn't understand me. I do not distinguish race as being any more
> or less relevant than any other feature.
> 
>   If hair color can be used for some statistic, then so be it. If race can
> be used for some statistic, then fine. I don't care. To me it's all the
> same. I don't make any special distinction.

Every feature you mentioned is part of "race". It's all based on genetics.

Was this intentional, or did you also want to include, say, style of 
clothing, amount of taxes paid last year, which God you happen to worship, etc?

>   If the distinguishing feature of some statistic happens to be race, and
> you really want to call it "racial profiling",

People only call it that when the feature you're profiling for hasn't 
anything to do with race. If you're talking about Tay sachs, nobody 
complains about racial profiling.  It's when you're talking about criminal 
behavior that people complain about racial profiling, because the two are 
unrelated.

>   I wish everybody else was like that too. I wish the world was a place
> where you can talk about human races, make statistics about them and
> whatever, freely and without any kind of worry, because it's just as
> inconsequential as gender, age or shoe size.

And when it's inconsequential, people don't mind. If police profiling was 
inconsequential to the people whose race is being used as the bad guys, 
nobody would complain.

>   But no. If you start talking about races, making statistics and profiles,
> you are immediately labeled as racist. Sheesh.

No, it's when one starts talking about races and arresting people based on 
that race that people label one racist.  A doctor who says "blacks are more 
likely to get hernias than whites" or "jews are more likely to get Tay Sachs 
than chinese", nobody labels him racist.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message