racism

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

most black ppl think they are the superior race for basketball...i agree with them...

Let's just take the definition as it is instead of adding things on (as you have done).

If we say race can account for ability and character, then we are invariably saying a race can be superior to another. Now, the definition doesn't state whether this superiority is isolated in one way or whether we are talking about 'general' superiority. Either way, the biology example leads us to to say races can be superior to one another.

most black ppl think they are the superior race for basketball...i agree with them...

Yes, but it can account for one race being superior in one field, and another being superior in another.

Your definition accounts only for one race being superior at absolutely everything.

You can't really try to link sports to a particar religon or race, it's more to do with the people who play it and physical ability if a white person tried hard enough he would become just as good.

"and that a particular race is superior to others. "

Your argument does not take this definition into account.

And it's a tenuous link at best, Seer.

Not true, in my opinion.

Physiologically speaking, races can be superior at certain types of sport.

Ethiopian/Kenyan muscle types seem to be suited to endurance events. Western African muscle type seems to be suited to sprint events. Swimming events seem to be suited to European muscle types.

But how can you say thats deffinent, they may not train their bodies in the same way you've gotta admit that the way a body is built will vary the performance. Maybe britain focus's more on swimming than anything else, maybe the ppl don't push themselves as hard as the opposition, mybe it's because of the fact their muscles were different....who's to say

If we say making a distinction between ability and character is possible we are invariably saying making a distinction between superiority is possible.

The main point of my argument is to suggest that, the word 'unjustfied' or 'false' should be used.

Let us say races X and Y start off equal.

We discover race X has a greater ability in tolerating the sun than race Y.

This necessarily makes race X superior, therefore this fair assertion is racist.

I think it depends on whether this superiority is isolated in a specific way, or we are talking about 'general' superiority. But, actually, regardless of the size of definition of 'superiority', a distinction in ability logically involves a distinction in superiority.

That's irrelevant really, the fact is that races can be innately more suited to certain activities than others.

But how can you say thats deffinent, they may not train their bodies in the same way you've gotta admit that the way a body is built will vary the performance. Maybe britain focus's more on swimming than anything else, maybe the ppl don't push themselves as hard as the opposition, mybe it's because of the fact their muscles were different....who's to say

We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).

You're definition of racism, and your noted physiological variation between races doesn’t match.

We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).

You're definition of racism, and your noted physiological variation between races doesn’t match.

We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).

My main reason for making this argument is to show the definition of stupid. The logical example you've quoted explains this adequately, there's no need to fuss over the pigmentation argument because the main point is not about pigmentation, it's that some perfectly innocent, logical, harmless truth can be deemed racist.