andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> You seemed to support that law or at least didn't condemn it.

  I think that's the core issue in this whole thread.

  It was not my intention to support that law. What I was really objecting
to was (what I perceive to be) the hypersensitivity many people have with
anything which deals with "race". In other words, my question was whether
people are objecting to the law purely because they have an automatic
aversion to anything that makes a distinction between races, or whether
there are *logical* reasons to oppose the law. (No need to answer that
for the umpteenth time. I am explaining here, not asking.)

  There are people (but not anybody here, as far as I can tell) who are
*so* hypersensitive about "racism" and racial issues that they are
promoting outright banning the entire concept of "race", and are saying
that *anything at all* which makes any kind of distinction between "races"
is extremely bad and should be banned. Naturally even any kind of honest
police work which does anything at all that distinguishes between racial
features, is also automatically bad, even if there is absolutely nothing
in that police work that could be considered discriminatory or racist.

  My personal opinion is that *if* in some contexts crime could be more
efficiently stopped by making the distinction, then it would make sense
to do so. Race shouldn't be something to be so hypersensitive about. It's
just another human trait as anything else.

  That doesn't mean I'm claiming that race *is* a trait that can be used
to more efficiently catch illegal immigrants in the southern US. What I am
saying that *if* it would be, then it would make sense to use it. (And I
do acknowledge that even if that was the case, it would still be problematic
because of other reasons, mainly people getting angry about it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message