Flea wrote:
Black aduts would remain and so black crime could continue. I dispute them being inter-related.
Give it a generation or two.
Its obvious to me that he was making an exaggerated statement just for the purpose of illustration.
Of course if you kill off 20% of the next generation's population, the number of crimes will go down.
The fact that you linked "black" with "crime" and not "black" with "population" shows how touchy you can be. How... knee-jerk as they say.
Pollitical Correctness is a fancy way to cover up language control. Control the language and control the ideas.
Let me put it this way:
Whites aren't full of themselves and disdainful towards other races because of a stereotype...
Blacks don't dress up in thugish clothes and have big penises because of a stereotype...
Jews don't grub money because of a stereotype...
Stereotypes are created from a fundamental grain of truth albiet as others see it through the, admitidly distortded, lens of thier own race/group/society and "perpetuating the stereotype" falls more on the race/group itself than on the people who use it.
I found this funny, despite being unrelated. Flea wrote:
Depends on what you think is a fact.
Wikipedia wrote:
A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence, generally by other facts.
In philosophy, a fact is either a true proposition or something (a state of affairs, for example) that "makes" a proposition true.
I was going to add somthing about
truth but in the philisophical sense it pretty much overwhelmed me, and I'm suposed to be working here... moving on.
Basically you can prove somthing as a fact. I think you could prove that because of the socio-racial relations inside the jewish community they are more comfortable and skilled with the concept of haggling than other groups. I'm sure a double blind test could be setup to prove that to a reasonable point.
Flea wrote:
Again, it's a matter of perception. If you don't get this, I can't really explain it any simpler: Blanket assumptions based on color are racist, even more so when you percieve them as fact.
You say it's not racist because you share those assumptions. I don't
Lets say that I work in X job, and I assist Y Orange people a day. I assume that because they all wear green shirts that Orange people love the color green, or at least like to wear it.
If I say "All Orange people like to wear green." am I being racist, or just making a correct statement that holds up in the area around job X.
As I mentioned earlier stereotypes persist partially because they are true. In the above situation you would have a hard time to convince me that all the Orange people didn't like green shirts when it is
somthing that I can prove to my own satisfaction with evidence I see every day.
I understand that it is wrong to assume things about someone
on an individual basis based on a racial stereotype but I don't see where it is wrong to hold it up to a whole race... because for the most part, I see it sticking across the broad picture.
Stereotypes come from somewhere.
(Partialy fear of the unknown and distance in racial relations admitidly.) Man I forgot where I was going with this... just jump back to the top and answer that, we'll be fine.
And I should at some point, actually work for my money 
