So according to you, none of what you said just there should be considered philosophy. That should all be moved to the lounge? Its just some superficial drivel not worthy of a real philosopher?
Lol, youre a strange dude. Throwing out some philosophy about a subject in a thread you made about how un-philosophical the subject is.

A sub forum or archive for closed threads?

I feel like I answered. Because people in the discourse believe in god. If they didnt...not so sure it would come up at all. Not like two atheists exploring an issue are going to offer up god as part of their arguments.

No, it would only require belief in god not gods actual existence. Universally present believers would (and do) have the same effect.

A troll? Jeez. That's the go to accusation isnt it? Seems like thats what two people in disagreement online always end up calling each other. Ive caught myself a few times. I think I blame the medium.

Thats interesting, I didnt know he was having his posts deleted. Can we know what kinds of posts he was making that had to be deleted? And the insult, out of curiosity.
So this is the second prolific poster that seemed to reach a “go ahead and ban me” stage where they start kind if daring someone to ban them. At least of the cases ive witnessed.
How often does that happen?

It wasnt my thread.

Well you killed it in its infancy, it hadnt had much time to develop. I understand though, there are probably way too many such threads to let each one develop.
What is the criteria? If he had been more organised In the OP, would that have saved his thread? There are threads with more organised OP but lack any real substance or are just a repetition of a topic thats been done to death (again, The anti natalist one comes to mind), and those seem to be allowed.
Im just curious about what counts as worthwhile to you, given what I see being allowed. Seems inconsistent, though I do realise that could be due to the sheer volume you have to sort through.

Presumably, I just wondered about the criteria. To me, if a thread is generating discussion it has merit even if the topic or OP is of low quality. Why is there yet another anti-natalist thread going strong yet this other guy gets shut down almost immediately?

Asking for the “disappearing” of a sub forum, or having it “folded” elsewhere is asking for abolishment. You are removing it from the philosophical discourse and putting it somewhere that better suits your sensibilities. You are trying to eliminate religious Philosophical discussion from the rest of the philosophical discussions. I don’t think abolishment is too strong a word, you are asking to remove religious philosophy from the rest of the philosophy. So I stand by that and everything else ive said on the subject, although my points are superseded by a point made by others: you could say the same thing about any philosophical discussion/topic on this forums. Hence my initial observation that you have no good reason to be calling for the “disappearing” of the religion sub forum.
Also, hilariously you use “abolish” in the title. You will have to forgive me for using the same term that you do. I repeat: get your head outta your ass.

Im aware that you asked for votes, and that you are very unlikely to bring about what you suggest. It is none the less shameful for anyone claiming an interest in philosophy and discourse, or for someone acting as part of a community to suggest or call for suppression or abolishment of topics/discourse they happen to dislike and/or get nothing out of themselves.
Also, it IS snobby to dismiss all those discussions and people as ignorant or unreasonable. Just because you have the foresight to bring that up before being accused of it doesnt mean your not doing it. Ridiculing religion and the religious is actually classic philosophical snobbery, and note I understand how well religion and the religious can make such snobbery not only easy but justified. Whats shameful isnt the snobbery, its the call you’ve made to satisfy your own sense of philosophical purity. It is a more unworthy act for a philosopher than chasing ones tail in a philosophy of religion forum, thats for sure.
So I say again, shame on you.

Right, your opinion is duly noted but thats not a good reason to abolish the religion forum. Obviously people enjoy and participate in that forum, so get your head out of your ass. Your OP is a shameful move for anyone interested in philosophy and discourse, and an online community like this one.

Why do you want it closed?

That person would be a Chinese citizen of european descent/origin. They would not share the racial traits of a Chinese person, as these are genetic traits formed through generations of exposure to a specific geography/environment. (And of course, im using my definition of rape...basically yours but with hate/discrimination as an additional requisite.)

I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them — NOS4A2

You did it again, that's exactly right. The “hate” part is what makes it racist. Simply recognising a group called “latinos” is not. The way you have defined race previously did not include the “hate” part, and that is what is causing the disagreement.

I fell behind cuz Im working, but just wanted to add something since Creativesoul is making the same point I would be making. Creativesoul is making the correct argument but I think using the wrong example. “Asian” should be replaced by something more specific, like “Chinese”, then hopefully the impact of the argument will get the point accross. “asian” describes geography, the biology of “asian” peoples is too diverse for it to be a useful biological “race”. Chinese people have definite common, biological traits where using a term like “race” is useful.

Asian is an adjective describing people from Asia. But no I do not believe there is a group of people called “Asians”. — NOS4A2

See you just referred to a group of people called asians and then denied there was a group of people called asians. That doesnt make sense.

I answered already, its not the colour/shade of the skin its about the genetics that inform that physical trait. I use skin colour because its a very easy way to illustrate that there are clear physical differences when someone denies there are differences.
The differences are clear, the distinctions might be less clear depending on the trait. You are right, there might be skin colours that dont indicate clearly a specific “race”, but thats exactly the point. You will be able to tell by the genetics, and other common traits to the group. Its not just skin colour.

Im not talking about scientific, biological entities of differing kinds of species, And thats not what people generally mean when they use the term “race”. Im not saying we have Morlocks and Eeloys.
Its simply the term that references the differences amongst groups humans.
There are two different senses of the word, you keep conflating them. There is a clear difference between skin colours and other physical features amongst certain groups of people, “race” is the word that describes them. (That is, its one of the uses of the word, the way Im using it).

The capacity to value - select, interpret, relate to - and, thereby, to be valued for (e.g.) following fighting feeding fucking etc seems intrinsic to life itself — 180 Proof

I would say those things are intrinsic to experience, not life, after all you can be alive and not conscious, or alive but braindead.
Also, I had tried to draw a distinction between individual value and collective value. Most people value their own experiences or life, but some people have no value (or such little value we can easily live without them, like serial killers) to the rest of us. Its the latter Im curious about, in such contexts as people on death row or life support. I often hear people defending preserving life in those circumstances by saying things like “all life is sacred/worth preserving” or by otherwise attributing some intrinsic value separate from the actual merits of that life (again, in the case of a serial killer where their life brings only vast suffering to others).

Sorry, Im not sure how to respond to most of that. Any chance you could tighten it up a bit? Its hard to tell where any of what you said relates to what yiu quoted. Im not trying to be a dick, even you mentioned word salad.

Apology accepted.

Its informed by genetics. Thats where those sorts of differences come from. Its not about the colour of skin per say, its about a genetic expression.
Its no different than noticing red heads generally have freckles.

Its genetics, remember? There is an actual, genetic difference behind that skin colour.
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess.

The difference in skin colour is an actual difference, isnt it? There are more differences than just that, but start there.
Is that an actual difference?

Ok, well there are physical traits common to people of those groups. More than just skin colour. People categorise these traits as “race”, and when they do so they aren’t implying a difference of species, or anything about anyone being inferior. They are just noticing actual differences, then applying a category for ease of reference. Whats the problem with that, other than a hateful person twisting it to suit their twisted views? They are going to do that anyway, why should we deny reality and pretend? That just doesnt seem like a useful way of doing it.
You have yet to tell why you find it more useful.

Yes, its genetics. Genetics that we differentiate using the word “race”. What else would you call it? You are not going to call both people “genetics”. Right?
Whats wring about racism is the discrimination part, the treating of people as lesser part, the one type of person is superior to another type of person part. Take those away, what is the problem with racism as you define it?

Well that response ignores most of what we have discussed so far...its just a repetition of your premiss which Ive said I disagree with. Now im asking you to defend that premiss.
Ill try one more time, from the start: there are clear physical differences between certain groups of people, such as those with “white” skin colour, and those with “black” skin colour. What word would you use to describe that difference, if not race?

Well there isnt much utility in that, obviously, so im giving him the benefit of the doubt that there is more to it.

I am going to repeat a post I made in case you missed it again. The conversation suddenly devolved and everyone else seems to have given up on discourse with you in this, but Im still interested in sorting this out with you. In particular, Id like to understand what utility you are getting out of defining racism that way. To me, the utility would have to be quite high to compensate for its flat denial of obvious facts about physical differences between some groups of humans. Also, I hope you arent taking my comments to be hostile. We disagree, and if Im wrong on my end Id like to hear why/how that's the case.
So here is my last comment:

“I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.”

I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.

No it doesnt. The opposite actually, it specifies those idealogical underpinnings as necessary for racism. What im excluding is people who simply recognise there are differences between certain people from different places, which we categorise as “race”. Those people are not racist.
Your definition doesnt have very good accuracy or utility, but maybe Im missing something. What good does defining racism in that way accomplish?

Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration. — praxis

Ill forgive you this time I guess. :wink:

It’s true that not all racists believe in race supremacy, or race nationalism or race segregation. I still don’t see any problem here. — NOS4A2

Thats only because you use the “wide net” definition of racism. I think believing in race superiority/inferiority IS what racism is. If you dont believe in racial inferiority/superiority, then there isnt a problem. Right?

Mr. Soul is right, thats precisely the problem I see with defining racism that way. I understand your concern about such differences overshadowing other more important things but who else but a racist (in the sense of discrimination based on race) is going to do that? Right? We dont want to set up the definition of racism to include people who do not hold views about the superiority of one race over another just so we can include the people who DO have those beliefs. We do not need to, we can easily identify those types of people (”racists”) by their views about racial inferiority Etc. No need to cast such a wide net.

I do not agree. I think you can notice differences without discriminating, the same way you can between individuals of all kinds. If I recognise a tall guy and a short guy are different, thats not a problem. If I then say “get the tall guy, inferior genes! Undeserving of human rights!” Or somesuch, then its a problem. “Tallism”.
I think you can even recognise advantages and disadvantages and its fine. The tall guy is better at getting stuff from high shelves. Doesnt mean the short guy is lesser, just different. The problem is racists who use that type of distinction to draw Their racist conclusions but we shouldnt concede the language to them.

Lol...im...sorry?

Ya, I noticed 2 was the odd man out, the other definitions are clearly racist imo.
Im honestly new to the term so I focused on the parts specifically about...well being racist. Still kinda floored its called “race realism”.
Thanks for the education on that.

We get it. NOS is an evil trumpest troll blah blah blah.
Why dont you just shut up about it and try actually contributing? Youre the one playing the role of troll by disrupting other peoples conversations.

Well sure, but simply recognising those differences doesnt seem like a problem to me. So if you define racism as recognising those differences then racism isnt really a problem...which makes it a problematic way of defining racism.
The “race realism” definition seems like a much better definition of racism, because it includes mistreatment based on race.
Its bizarre that such a thing would be called “race realism”, as if its realistic/fact based to discriminate based race. Never knew what “race realism” was...just sounds like plain racism to me.