Is it ok to dislike someone because of their skin color...?

im usually indifferent unless i see someone living the general stereotypes,

i.e. mexicans hanging out in a gang with drugs and wepons, balcks beating people up.
not that i expect to see a black man beating someone up whenever i see one but when i do see it i think they've EARNED there tittle as a nigger.

The only reason Idd see to ate somebody for their skin color is this

Well what if you are annoyed by people walking in the middle of the roads, or by yelling and complaining about anything they can because it serves them best. Now lets say that the majority of people you have met with these certain qualities are all similar in one way or another. Lets say they all owned a certain car or all wore their hair a certain way, so if you were to start generalizing that all these people who had these certain attributes were like this. That is not racist, but if you decide one of those attributes were skin color that makes it wrong?

Yes it may be prejudice, but if statistically you are correct is it wrong to make assumptions based on color? Is it wrong to assume that someone driving an expensive car has more financially secure? If they believe that because they are of a certain color they can or must behave in someway isnt that just as racist? If I believe that just because; I am asian i must be good at math, and bad at driving; doesnt that make me just as racist? I think it is ok they are your beliefs and feelings. Why should you feel bad for what you believe? After all isnt that what freedom is supposed to be?

But just like what Skrymir said that doesn't mean you should do anything illegal to prove your dislike.

It's never right to dislike someone purely on the grounds of what skin color they were born with. They had no part nor choice in what color their skin is.

People should, in general, be liked or hated based only on their own words, actions, successes, and failures.

Remember: assholes come from every race.

The only non-hypocritical racist is the man who hates the entire human race, including himself. (And for the record, claiming you are one of these is an effective means of getting out of jury duty.)

Ideally i believe that you are right, but this isn't an ideal world. No they do not have a choice, but they do have a choice for how they behave and what they believe. Most people i have been around fall into the stereotypical attitudes and behaviors of their races. Why is that, i am not sure but it seems that society and the media have influenced us into believing that certain races can get away acting the way they do in the media.

Would saying that in general black people are not as smart as white people be considered racist? Even if you considered that since black people were enslaved for so many years that they were essentially bred to be capable workers? It was not necessary for them to be able to write or compute larger numbers. I believe that by what i am saying is logical and nothing more. Couldn't i say the same for certain breeds of dogs would that be wrong?

That's pretty much what I meant, right there.


This is more a cultural thing than a racial one. If a white couple adopted a Latino baby orphaned at birth, he'd end up acting like the white family that raised him.


Depends on the context. If you mean on average, you might be correct in a strictly by-the-numbers sense, but there are loads of other factors to consider.
Again, cultural impact is one of these factors. Black boys in the U.S. are encouraged more by society to perform athletically than they are encouraged to perform academically.


Breeding for physical traits has nothing at all to do with genetic mental predisposition. If it did, then most people of European ancestry would be utterly screwed - the age of widespread illiteracy (from prehistory on through 'til after the Industrial Revolution) lasted far longer than black slavery.


Yes, because it would be a bad comparison. Dog breeds exist because they were selectively bred for certain desirable traits by humans.
You'd be correct only if the trait of mental retardation was intentionally bred into a race.

Human evolution has planted so many thousands of generations of predisposition towards intelligence and cunning (as this has always been a vital survival trait in the species) that the idea of breeding it out by emphasizing only the physically superior traits is ludicrous.

I agree with point one and two and most of three. Although in a large study i believe those factors less of an influence to the validity. That is true about the priorities that we place on those people, but what is the result when they do not get a reliable source of income because they put it all on sports? Society is to blame for that so essentially by encouraging them to become athletes instead of white collar workers doesn't that seem like society is saying that is all your capable of? So isn't that pretty much breeding we say you should become stronger to perform better. And they reply to that by working physically instead of mentally.

As for point four, if you place priorities to physical attributes instead of mental ones doesn't that reduce the advancement of their mental disposition? Do you not think that when slavery was legal that people wanted the people who were the most capable? That's logical isn't it? What was the best way to make sure you were the best? Get rid of the weaker ones right? Mental retardation was not intentionally bred in, but i don't think high IQ's were at the top of their priorities.

Just because society says it doesn't make it so.



That's not breeding at all, no.



No. Nature doesn't work that way, nor does evolution. If it did, we'd probably never have those rare individuals who excel at damn near everything and make everyone envious.



It is, but slavery wasn't all purely manual labor, either. There were mentally-involved tasks to be done - for example, many plantation owners had a few slaves act as foremen, who would oversee and manage the others.

They kept black people down by threat of violence and death, denial of their original culture, and suppression of their education, not by breeding them into stupidity. A stupid slave was only useful for carrying stuff.



Where did this idea that being smarter means being weaker come from? It's quite false.