The Tulsa Race Riot

[Violet]

The simplest way to explain that would be to be "racist," you have to have some opinion about the race, as a whole. Whether you think all people of one race have big penises or all people of one race smell funny, it has to pertain to the entire race. Like I said, saying a group has a tendency to be good at a sport is not quite the same as saying "All black people are good at basketball, so I hate every other race." or something to that effect.

Agreed with the first half... but the last bit is a nonsequiter (it does not follow that because X race is good at Y that all other races are worthy of disdain).

You may find one alder worthy of unique judgment, but you would not commit violence or give windfalls to a particular type because of their perceived inferiority or superiority.

I might. Depends on how serious the perceived superiority/inferiority is (and how can a judgement of value be anything but perceived?). I tend to take what I can get and make the most use of it as I can (within reason)... but if a thing absolutely fails I will cut the losses. I've been known to cut entire quadrants before due to distance from other superpowers in the galaxy. (The people on those planets being indefensible and therefore mostly worthless).

A. Because they are not races, they are species. B. Because they have not split themselves up into races, as we have. Now, if trees thought and talked amongst themselves and one group of trees felt themselves superior to other trees, after having established races, that would be racism. They would have different cultures by which to judge each other. Humans judge trees as trees, not as humans. We do not judge a tree's ability to play baseball or their historical propensity toward *insert cultural habits here*. I would cite the dictionary for the differences between race and species, but you're one of those nutters who doesn't pay attention to definitions.

Then different types of humans might as well be considered different species as well. Black skin pigmentation is better in tropical areas, white skin pigmentation is better in arctic areas. It cannot be escaped that there are measurable differences between the different human 'sub-species' (for that is what our 'races' are), and thus each can be valued according to what it brings to the table.

I consider 'races' to be a biological 'kind'/'type', ie: the crawling races and the flying races. It doesn't apply outside of biology (ie: computer races and races of tables?), but it is a term for distinction.

Personality or no, they are not defined by race. And, they could not be people. People=human.

Not all humans are people, and Pearl (a dog) is a person unlike any other I've met. Human babies and especially pre-birth humans are certainly not people, and human children are scarcely so.

Not to mention it does every spacefarring race in the universe a huge disservice to declare only humans as people

If they didn't, it would be a rare case of sexism without unconsciously acting on that ism.

This is a rare case? I think not. An employer can still be impressed if you break the mold excellently. If someone hires me to do some sort of dangerous/physically difficult work, it certainly is not due to my physical build. I've have to impress them with my reckless and ruthless method of getting the job done using leverage a great deal of energy

If brute force does not work: use more brute force.

Differences are fine, in this regard, without assumptions or assertions.

And yet, a difference is necessarily an assumption that it is there and an assertion is necessarily the belief that it is there. There are differences between the different races of people... hence the different races of people.

Haha, I knew you were not saying it was; I was pointing out that military and governmental issues are not racism. Therefore, my example of geographic location still stands.

I misunderstood you then, me sorry!