/townhall/ - Townhall

>>12483
>Racial equality is assertion that racial differences are cosmetic and not substantive in terms one's abilities,  ...
As stated, that is clearly false.  E.g., black people have better ability to resist sunburn.  I think the term "racial equality" is better understood to mean equality before the law, equal rights, and lack of unjust racial discrimination.

>>12484
I see that as a component of the meaning of equality.  I think a lack of prejudice factors in as well, even when not part of an overt discrimination policy.

If the sunburn thing is important enough, then you might say it's appropriate to see dark skinned people as more robust.

I know the importance of respecting the state, and the state has preferred enforcing systems of difference based on race.  So I don't wish to challenge state power.  I think maybe that's why you specify unjust discrimination, to mean some is to be tolerated if it comes from the state.

Race is just a socially-created and sustained mental construct based off of gossip and hearsay.

>>12485
Most racial discrimination is unjust, especially by the state.  Examples of racial discrimination that are not unjust are: selecting an actor to portray a character of a specific race, looking for a sexual/ /romantic partner of a specific race if that is what one has a strong preference for, etc.

It is really hard to have sincere discussions with insincere people.

Equality under the law isn't the same thing at all as inherent absolute equality.

Obviously, tall people are different than short people. Height affects health. It even changes one's lifespan in terms of medical predictions. Everything from one's dating life to one's success in looking for job promotions can be affected.

At the same time, it would be immoral to the point of straightforwardly being evil if the U.S. government were to instruct the police to search and arrest short people under suspicion of being terrorists compared to tall people.

This analogy seems to apply extremely well to racial and ethnic groups.

>>12486
Describing race with the words gossip and hearsay makes me think you are in favor of racial equality.

>>12487
I see.  Yes, those things seem minimally objectionable.

>>12489
I have thought about making threads about the politics of the pony world.

>>12490
>Equality under the law isn't the same thing at all as inherent absolute equality.

I would agree.  Equality under the law is a part of what people mean by equality, but not all of it.

>>12487
>looking for a sexual/romantic partner of a specific race if that is what one has a strong preference

I can understand believing that this isn't morally wrong in the abstract, and the argument is reasonable. A preference isn't the same as an ideological belief.

However, in practical terms Americans tend to impose serious negative actions upon each other due to perceived sexual attractiveness. For example, U.S. employers regularly pay female workers seen as 'hot' or such more than other female employees. As well, men seen as "handsome" who are looking to assist U.S. charities raise more funds for them than other men. It goes on.

This appears to be a highly deleterious trend for American society as a whole, although I honestly have little idea what if anything would make it all better. Of course, it's not as if an act of Congress or some legal tweak would fix everything. And there's no one person singularly at fault: this is a broad trend.

>>12483
Depends heavily on what you mean.
There's a range of ideas associated to such things as 'equality'.
Equality of treatment, or equality of outcome, are the big pair.

>>12498
I suppose the common meaning, yes.

Legal equality is the business of the state, but where people are free, I mean that.

Equality of treatment, yes.

If we presume there is no inherent difference between races related to a measure, equality of treatment should lead to no statistically significant inequality of outcome.

>>12500
Then as far as it pertains to equality of treatment, I suppose I'm for that.

>If we presume there is no inherent difference between races related to a measure, equality of treatment should lead to no statistically significant inequality of outcome.
If we presume there's no cultural differences, too, perhaps.
But I do not think this favors reality.

Regardless; I'm not overly concerned about statistical deviation, as statistics, frankly, don't tell you much of individual circumstance.

>>12501
>If we presume there's no cultural differences, too, perhaps.
I guess racial equality would have to mean a lack of inegaltarian culture.  If an outcome is...a general good thing for a human, and something in culture degrades that outcome for a racial group, and you favored equality, the part of culture that caused the degradation would be faulty.

>>12498
>>12500
>>12501
I suppose "equality of treatment" is going to be such an inherently more messy concept versus "equality under the law" because people can do deleterious actions against each other either totally unwillingly or with a lot of great justification without realizing the proper context.

I'd also like to say that even a personal commitment to 'equality' as a moral standard can break down in your own life without too much pressure.

A notable instance that comes to mind is the public outcry over the "Ideal Conceal pistol", a handgun deliberately designed to look identical to a standard cellphone. If I'm a police officer in an urban location, finding out that local criminal groups, especially dangerous gangs, are arming themselves with this will mean that I'm at a far greater danger than otherwise and may be more likely to react violently to people with what apparently look like cellphones acting suspiciously. And this can be have sexist, ageist, homophobic, racist, et cetera implications if the particular criminal gangs are known for being made up of men, of gay people, of black people, of people under thirty, et cetera.

>>12505
>messy concept
I find law to be fairly messy, but perhaps that's personal.  Mostly in that although law has text, it's not text I'm qualified to interpret, so what I really must look at is the use of force by a state, and then I must presume that force to be associated with law.  Which is really just as messy, but maybe if you are qualified to interpret law, it's different.

>personal commitment...break down
Oh, of course.  I suppose the moral perspective determines the aspiration and what is regrettable.  If racial inequality is good, actually -- there's no need to apologize or try to do better.  Although, yes, in both cases there may be instances of prejudice.

>>12505
>Ideal Conceal pistol
It is a nifty idea, but the sights suck, and so does the ammo capacity (it only holds 2 rounds).  I suppose it would be adequate if you're going jogging and want to be able to neutralize a dog who bites you, but I wouldn't rely on it to deal with two-legged threats.

>>12505
>If I'm a police officer in an urban location, finding out that local criminal groups, especially dangerous gangs, are arming themselves with this will mean that I'm at a far greater danger than otherwise.
Not really.  With a good IWB holster and baggy clothing, it's easy to conceal normal compact pistols and sometimes even full-size pistols.  Gang members arming themselves with only an Ideal Conceal pistol would probably put cops at *less* risk, due to the very low ammo capacity.

>>12520
>>12519
It really has to be asked whether the concealability of such a gun is that much better than your typical derringer.
They aren't especially large, and ultimately, that seems to be all these are.