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.

  After all, if race isn't any more or less important than other features,
then the above expression is quite equivalent to, for example, "profiling
based on age".

  Even if he meant that *all* profiling is wrong, regardless of what is being
used to do the profiling, I still can't understand what the "you don't see
race" meant in that context.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message