Should racism be classified as a mental disorder?

If you do not agree with "Communism" (at all), do you tolerate it? And honestly, I would not compare the two things; I'm not sure how one could.

Even so, I see virtually NO REASONS to tolerate the dehumanizing and destructive thing that "racism" is.

Racism vs. homosexuality; which one has been the greatest problem for mankind?

Again, I really would NOT compare those two things. Sorry.

Thanks.

As far as 'wanting' to be around "separatists"... no, that isn't so. It's more like they are going to be around, they always are. The idea is to let them know that you don't agree with what they are up to, especially when they are forcefully advocating the same. Really, what "good" comes of racism or abject hatred?

There isn't enough "Earth" for all of the JERKS to move to... nor is their enough room for everyone with a 'difference' to move to their own little isolated spot. It would be logical and decent to realize and accept that we must work to mitigate certain things at the base of our nature. So no, there isn't enough Earth... for everyone to have their own way.

 

No, I just can't go for 'killing' those I disagree with.

But despising something that destructive morally and philosophically... I'm up for that.

 

Despising doesn't create a better world. Ridding the world of those that oppress does.

 

Killing people is usually no good answer; I just kind of know that.

There is a way that people can be affected, if properly educated and social pressure is brought to bear.

As it is, we often see people tolerating and winking-at racism. That just needs to become more unacceptable.

 

Should gays who hang out at gay bars be classified with a mental disorder?

Obviously not. At it's base, racism is just a group preference that is common about humanity. There is nothing that peculiar about racism itself.

Racism isn't the lack of logic or rationality. There are plenty of people who are rational, intelligent, and logical are racists (even if they're opinions are different than yours). perhaps you should be wondering if we should invent a new disorder for people who think their view of the world is the only right one.

 

Well, it looks like you and I have irreconcilable differences of opinion on that score. You and the racial separatists both have intolerant worldviews that I just don't sympathize with. Good luck, Johnny-C.

 

I don't think I can force anyone to change their mind and I'm typically easy-going.

I'm just not going to say that racism is 'okay'.

 

It is a symptom of mental deficiency or, if applied to an entire ethnicity or other identifiable culture or subculture, a lack of cultural sophistication.

Racists are barely advanced beyond a spear-chucker level of sophistication.

 

Interesting. Where do they hang out? I have never met any.

 

Sure. All liberals are racist and we already know that liberals are mentally defective. They go hand in hand, like gays at the altar.

 

There's people you "disagree with", ie, they like plain M&M's, you like Peanut M&Ms, and people who want to make you their slave, and they get ALL the M&M's.

Those last people? Kill them.

 

Any peer reviewed scientific information that would suggest racism should be classified as a mental disorder? Seems like something a scientist or a doctor would be an expert on. In the OP we are only treated to platitudes. Not a very convincing case, at all.

 

So you claim there is an objective right and wrong. Please prove it to us.

Is it wrong to have sex with 14 year olds? 15,16, or 17 year olds?

 

I don't believe that Racsm is a mental disorder itself but it seems in a large number of cases in my experience to be a symptom of one...

 

That is actually a more debatable point. In our society, it is a lesser wrong because we expect teenagers to grow up slower than they did historically. It's the taking advantage of immaturity rather than the total betrayal of a child in that case, which is why calling someone who sleeps with a 15 year old a paedophile is rather misleading. However, even if you want to argue about where the boundary starts, you yourself know that the boundary is there, and an 8 year old is definitely on the wrong side of that boundary.

 

So you cannot answer to actually demonstrating the existence of objective morality and neither can you tell me at which ages it is 'morally wrong' to have sex with a teenager.

I don;t 'know'any such thing because there is no objective morality. However my Subjective morality suggests that 8 year olds cannot consent to sex and their bodies are not equipped for it.

Of course you can always make your argument for objective morality but you had better be able to defend it.

 

The morality of a society is always a cross between objective morality and subjective morality. Making the mistake of considering that "anything goes" because it is hard to differentiate between the two ignores both the evidence of negative consquences and the need for a society to perpetuate patterns of behavior that benefit that society AND THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN IT. This is especially true with the example of child sex abuse, where the evidence is very strong that not only does it badly affect the child, but that it can often create a cycle of abuse where the abused grows up to become either an abuser or tolerant of abuse toward their own children.

Playing philosophical games is all very well, but it doesn't help much with practical reality or the need for people to have a moral compass by which they choose to lead their lives. If my neighbor beats his wife, should I buy him a wife-beating stick for his birthday?

 

I would take Asian out of that since most Asians seem to be a rare and refreshing exception. I never hear them express any of the same tired PC victimhood rhetoric that everybody else does. If anything, they're responsible and hard working. But sadly, I have to agree with the rest of that.

 

Sounds like what they tried to do in the Soviet Union, classify anyone with opposing beliefs as mentally ill, to lock political dissidents up and stigmatize them.

 

If the people being called racists were all wearing white hats, sheets and have 4 teeth left you might have a point. But that word is now used so loosely even a person of the same racial group will get called a self-hating racist for expressing concerns about one of more aspects of their culture.

 

Who cares, please refrain from complimenting them.

The majority of them empower Progressive-Leftist authoritarians with their vote.

 

Actually, I've heard the opposite. That they are the one minority group that is less likely to vote Democrat. Granted, I don't have any stats readily available to back this up so it does need verification.

 

I just saw the stats for 2012 election.

Something like 60-70% for Obama.

(*)(*)(*)(*) them.

 

Since “No opinion is ‘wrong,’” therefore, the opinion that those who say, “No opinion is ‘wrong,’" are mentally ill is true.

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that follow Koalemos the god of stupidity]." (Obama)

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...07377-case-impeachment-obama-article-one.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3479-its-actually-closer-us-being-idiots.html

The right to make speech and argument is required for free peoples to determine right from wrong for their preferred cultural State, but the right for opinion and belief to be respected and tolerated free from verbal denigration is not.

 

Since it is theoretically possible for a race to be inclined to suck the blood of another (“Galactic Locusts&#8221, therefore, classifying racism as a mental disorder could be suicide, consequently, it is best just to make valid arguments and denigrate the bad ones.