Racism

Sorry but even as "opinion", I would never forgive someone messing up, even "just for talking", with the human dignity. Whatever the form.

You can dislike people as much as you please, but you must not deny their dignity as human being.

That alone put/state some limits to the acceptability of any opinion, racisms included. As long as you do not cross those limits, that should not matter.

lolkay.

Also
>arbitrary set of criteria



Basically saying you're not allowed to make others feel bad, right?

You do realize that this sentiment is retarded, right?

No. I said your own humanity fades away the moment you deny the human dignity of people.




Aw an insult. You can't do better ?

Well then I suppose that's the difference between us.

I believe it's more important to prevent discrimination based on beliefs.
You seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it's more important to prevent discrimination based on heritage. I'm not sure how to word "discrimination of human dignity" so I went with that.
Both are great causes to pursue.

No. You said "You most not deny their dignity as human being."

The concept of retaining your "dignity" is so broad.

If you mean, let's say we treat a criminal or someone accused a crime with compassion and respect instead of just hanging them, then I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you, but that's not the way you worded it.

No, I know what I'm saying :-)

Have you reflect why you must not deny to people their dignity as human being ? Because otherwise your own humanity fades away the moment you deny the human dignity of people.

You must treat a criminal with humanity. Punishing him must be right and not some vengeance.



Education is part of heritage if you want to investigate this axis.

Human dignity is a notion about human rights, really important though I've just 'come aware not every people either had been educated about it, or had been able to realize/understand that notion. Aw so bad they're not able to. Feel somehow sorry for those puppies.

Human dignity includes (not only but also) the fact of recognizing that people are interchangeable in situations -- they all must be treated the same way by you and they must treat you the same way you treat them. As well a person is not an object nor just an animal.

Dignity is a fundamental of Human Rights.


[size=10]Did someone miss his/her classes ? Aw, Wikipedia can help you :-)))[/h]

I do agree that he has the right to be racist and simply being racist isnt a crime, but i also believe that your personal oppinions and what you think, can and in some cases should have consequences.

Yes he has the right to be racist, but i also think other people around him have the right to act accordingly when somebody is being racist. I do understand that he did not meant his oppinion to be heard outside the home or whatever and that he was illegally recorded, but that information is now part of the public record, doesnt matter how it was recorded, it would be in my oppinion stupid to say that everybody simply has to ignore it, because it was recorded illegally. NBA has the power to remove Sterling from the NBA organisation based on the information that they can get legally, meaning once the recording was out, every person on the internet got its hands into it.

This is already second time i say this, but the charge of Sterling getting illegally recorded has nothing to do with NBA, NBA only used that information.

What ? You're so low in understanding ???

Do not amalgamate. Reacting with vengeance make you a criminal, whatever your mindset.

Who cares if you don't bother contextualizing it? You're also avoiding a really important point.




Yes, humans have learned to cooperate together and abide by a common law to achieve a common goal(prosperity). The idea is kinda shakey considering what kinda laws are in place, and what is considered a social norm, and to what extend one should follow it.



No, everyone is granted basic civil rights(well not always) and should be seen as somewhat equal under the law(again not always). Humans are not inherently the same or interchangeable. People grow up in different environments, with different values and different social norms.(inb4 you claim these arbitrary)

Let's say I were to pick up a bible, and burn it because I found something offensive about it.(I dunno, last time I read it was over 5 years ago, but I'm sure it approved of slavery unless you beat your slave too hard, or something)

Obviously this is disrespectful, and harmful to the ego of who ever it is happens to hold that dear to themselves, and their "humanity", or what they believe it to be. How would you deal with this? Keep in mind there is a group of angry people who feel as if they've been violated by my actions. I think people have a right to receive ethical treatment regardless of past crimes, even if that includes "hate speech". But only by law, and those who govern.

I said I didn't know how to word it (shortly and clearly) in that sentence. Never said I didn't know what it meant. It would seem you don't know how to do it either since it takes you that much space to explain yourself.

Saying everyone must be treated the same way is wrong. You cannot treat a child the same way you would treat an adult or an alzheimers patient. You probably meant that no one's rights must not be offended.

Or if you really meant that then why don't you treat me like you would treat your dad and listen to me when I tell you not to be condescending towads other people.

Saying people are interchangeable is insane. I looked it up for you. Things that are interchangeable can replace each other easily. Interchangeable objects or people can be substituted, and no one would know the difference.
You're welcome ;)



I think people's opinions should not have consequences, only their actions. I don't think it matters that it is now public information.
Freedom is a two way street. If we are free to express ourselves he should be free to express himself too. It's not right to force him to think like us, insted we should persuade him. I'm not saying we should ignore the event but this isn't the way to handle this.
If NBA doesn't want him in their club they are free to kick him out but punishing him with a fine (no matter how small) is not right.

Well it takes some place because it is (at least here) an evidence. The same as when you explain what is "liberty", or "information", or "movement", or (worse) "time", etc. Not knowing basic notions is quite inconvenient but it is not impossible to learn them.




More than that no one's rights must not be offended. Also I said that people are interchangeable in situations, meaning you have been a child once, and you may someday be ill from alzheimers.




I'm not bound to listen every word of my dad -- for quite a time :-)




People are interchangeable in situations because they can live the same situations, so yeah it still/always is possible and valide. One day you may have a job and another get fired and replaced. The same in love and for lot of situations.

Then what you mean is situation are interchangeable to people. But I don't agree with that either. Rarely the same end resolve comes when you change the situations. If date someone it doesn't mean the person is interchangeable. The other person has different ideas and dreams. It won't be the same.

You're too into subjectivity.

Being interchangeable in situation does not forbid the choice and the difference.

Choice is also a fundamental right.

Yes, we have the freedom to express ourselves, and Sterling also has the freedom to express himself too, but we also have the freedom to react to his freedom of expresson and oppinions. That is why it matters what peoples oppinions are and that is why peoples oppinions have consequences. If the whole enterprise of NBA as a organisation wants to distance it from one single person, i think they have the right to do so, even if that move is based on solely on what the single persons personal oppinion was on matter x.

I agree that it is not right for us to force him to change his oppinions, but this is what i mean by when i say "oppinions should have consequences:" we are not forcing him to change his oppinion, after this ordeal he can still be racist if he wants to, but we (NBA) dont want to have anything to do with him, and we (NBA) are using our legal power to remove him from this organistation. Yes, essentially it means: "If you want to be part of us, you have to think like us", BUT that is not the same as us forcing him to change his views, because they are not even forcing him to be in the NBA in the first place.

I also agree that this whole situation could have been handled better in many ways. I actually believe people can change their views, so i personally might not have straight up fired him, but since i dont have control over NBA in any way, im only protecting NBAs right to do what they have done, because i believe oppinions do have consequences. Im not saying i 100% agree with what NBA has done or how they have handled it, but i do believe their premise of removing Sterling.

Well typically asians are called asians and there is nothing wrong with that, its not racist unless there is a certain tone to it. Just like one calling their african based friend a nigger which is racist if it wasn't towards a friend, but because it was directed at a friend... its ok? Maybe not but I'm fine with being called an asian unless if there was a certain tone put behind it. On the other hand I also call african based people black, and they are fine with it, so is it ok to call caucasians white? Yes it is and caucasians calling and african based person black should be totally fine too. Just my opinion

"Even Buddha forgive three times."

In a way, you can give another chance as long as people repent -- and better not repeat offence.

The problem with it is deciding whether their apology is sincere. A sincere apology is something that should always allow forgiveness. But some people are very good at making it seem sincere when they're actually not. Ultimately, you can get away with an insincere apology if you don't re-offend. But the more times an apology is revealed to be insincere, the less likely someone is to accept future apologies.

"Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently."


We still hear a lot of rampant racism comments around us. For me, as long as there is no acceptance whether you're this or that, then it would still be a cancer in our society.