DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**riverakathy** · 10-16-2009, 06:46 PM

Racialist is an uncommon word. In common parlance you would be a racist. Racialism does not carry the connotation that you believe in the superiority of or need for dominance by any given race; it simply means that you believe that certain races are innately better at certain things.

Now, if you want to carry this to the extreme, very few people wouldn't be racialists at all; for example, only the ignorant would claim that white people aren't innately better at not getting sickle-cell anemia.

The line between racialism and simple evidence-based beliefs comes when you start to get into the question of more poorly-defined quantities and those subject to environmental effects like intelligence or athletic ability.

But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist?

I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based?

Dosen't this mean that you can be called a boo word (a racist) because you reason acording to evidence? Or to put it bluntly is the only sure way of avoiding this particular stigma that might cost you your job or friends is to ignore facts?

10-16-2009, 06:46 PM	#17
riverakathy Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 461 Senior Member	Racialist is an uncommon word. In common parlance you would be a racist. Racialism does not carry the connotation that you believe in the superiority of or need for dominance by any given race; it simply means that you believe that certain races are innately better at certain things. Now, if you want to carry this to the extreme, very few people wouldn't be racialists at all; for example, only the ignorant would claim that white people aren't innately better at not getting sickle-cell anemia. The line between racialism and simple evidence-based beliefs comes when you start to get into the question of more poorly-defined quantities and those subject to environmental effects like intelligence or athletic ability. But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist? I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based? Dosen't this mean that you can be called a boo word (a racist) because you reason acording to evidence? Or to put it bluntly is the only sure way of avoiding this particular stigma that might cost you your job or friends is to ignore facts?
	Quote