Planet Rugby Forum

Why is Muslim not a race?

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

I have just explained why it is. Is that not good enough for you?

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Because islam is a religion that anyone of any ethnic or racial background can choose to convert to become a "Muslim" , they can come from anywhere on the globe , be any biological background or any cultural background.

A Muslim is a followers,of Islam that is all. No racial or ethnic identity is required to be a Muslim.

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Is Scientology?

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Because islam is a religion that anyone of any ethnic or racial background can choose to convert to become a "Muslim" , they can come from anywhere on the globe , be any biological background or any cultural background.

A Muslim is a followers,of Islam that is all. No racial or ethnic identity is required to be a Muslim.

What is a racial identity?

Irish is a race and everything you just said about Muslims is just as true of Irish

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

I have just explained why it is. Is that not good enough for you?

I love how you think I was talking to you

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Because islam is a religion that anyone of any ethnic or racial background can choose to convert to become a "Muslim" , they can come from anywhere on the globe , be any biological background or any cultural background.

A Muslim is a followers,of Islam that is all. No racial or ethnic identity is required to be a Muslim.

What is a racial identity?

Irish is a race and everything you just said about Muslims is just as true of Irish

Sorry? A Nigerian living in Nigeria can decide to convert to be Irish and from then on be Irish? When I fill in my next census form I can convert to Chinese and from then on be treated as a Chinese person.

Radial identity is a thing we humans and society refer to all the time, now I understand the reach of this can change due to social construct changes (CIA , see and all that multi gender bollocks), either we scrap the whole idea of race and racial identity (biology will have some work to do to find new words for stuff) or we accept that "race" cannot be a thing we can convert to.


It's a f ucking belief system chuckles , belief in a religion that's all it is.

And the definition of "race" is so broad, nebulous, and disconnected from any real-world characteristics that a belief system can absolutely be included under it. Biology wouldn't need to change one single fucking thing in order to scrap the concept of "race" entirely, it is not and has never been an even vaguely scientific concept

Chuckles1188 wrote:And the definition of "race" is so broad, nebulous, and disconnected from any real-world characteristics that a belief system can absolutely be included under it. Biology wouldn't need to change one single fucking thing in order to scrap the concept of "race" entirely, it is not and has never been an even vaguely scientific concept

Next time I turn up at the sickle cell society demanding to be tested I'll tell them I've chosen to be racially African that day and demand equality.

You stupid c unt.

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Is Scientology?

Well?

What does "racially African" mean?

Mick Mannock wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Is Scientology?

Well?

Sure, why not

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Is Scientology?

Well?

Sure, why not

What about belief systems that do not include a God?

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Is Scientology?

Well?

Sure, why not

So your argument is that you'll do away with any traditional definition, and attempts at scientific generation and because the "concept" can be broad just give a word your own meaning.

I suppose in the spirit now being able to choose your own gender daily, choosing your own version of language and just making up meanings that suit you is perfect.

Racially African is a description of people with brown eyes from Siberia. see we can all do it.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Because there is no such thing as race ya dingbat.

This is correct, but since we persist in talking about it even though there is no such thing as race we might as well apply it consistently, and a consistent application of how "race" is used would include Muslims

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Is Scientology?

Well?

Sure, why not

So your argument is that you'll do away with any traditional definition, and attempts at scientific generation and because the "concept" can be broad just give a word your own meaning.

I suppose in the spirit now being able to choose your own gender daily, choosing your own version of language and just making up meanings that suit you is perfect.

Racially African is a description of people with brown eyes from Siberia. see we can all do it.

I'd prefer we stop using it at all, but as bimbo is aptly demonstrating that's an unwinnable battle so let's at least be inclusive about it

This whole argument is predicated on the idea that there is some kind of scientific means of deploying the concept of "race", but there isn't. We don't, outside of actual science, base ideas on science. The only scientific thing that unites people native to Africa is being native to Africa, but because we've decided that "Africa" is a meaningful idea in its own right we desperately try to find some kind of scientific concept which unites people from it.

One can be culturally African, but culture isn't derived from science

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Because there is no such thing as race ya dingbat.

Also acceptable but in that case I do think things like the "racial discrimination " clauses in laws need some serious attention.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Why is Muslim not a race?

Because there is no such thing as race ya dingbat.

This is correct, but since we persist in talking about it even though there is no such thing as race we might as well apply it consistently, and a consistent application of how "race" is used would include Muslims

Clowns of your ilk won't stop bloody going on about race. Yet on the other hand declare it not to exist.

Wish you'd make up your mind.

Scientifically it doesn't, but we've been doing this for so long that it has acquired a cultural meaning which is real.

Black Americans, genetically, are not unified by anything, but there is still such a thing as black culture in America

Seneca of the Night wrote:Muslim is race, though there is no such thing as race, but given that people insist there is, we might as well have one inclusive race, of which Muslims are part of, although they are a separate race, like the Irish.

Welcome to the whacky world of Chuckles.

There is no such thing as race, but we act as if there is so you can still be racist because we pretend race is a real idea

Chuckles1188 wrote:This whole argument is predicated on the idea that there is some kind of scientific means of deploying the concept of "race", but there isn't. We don't, outside of actual science, base ideas on science. The only scientific thing that unites people native to Africa is being native to Africa, but because we've decided that "Africa" is a meaningful idea in its own right we desperately try to find some kind of scientific concept which unites people from it.

One can be culturally African, but culture isn't derived from science

Sorry, are you saying that groupings of humans that share physical similarities that we now know are shared DNA giving traits aren't real ?

You can argue that we shouldn't use the word "race" to group these but surly you're not denying that these groups and differences exist ?

Black Americans, genetically, are not unified by anything, but there is still such a thing as black culture in America

What? Are you now denying he history of the slave trade and its subsequent movements of its victims across America ? Bigot.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Muslim is race, though there is no such thing as race, but given that people insist there is, we might as well have one inclusive race, of which Muslims are part of, although they are a separate race, like the Irish.

Welcome to the whacky world of Chuckles.

There is no such thing as race, but we act as if there is so you can still be racist because we pretend race is a real idea

Wonderful.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:.

I'd prefer we stop using it at all, but as bimbo is aptly demonstrating that's an unwinnable battle so let's at least be inclusive about it

So your way of being inclusive is to say there is just one race?

To go down that route, accusations of racism would cease to have any meaning, and discrimination would have to be addressed differently.

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:This whole argument is predicated on the idea that there is some kind of scientific means of deploying the concept of "race", but there isn't. We don't, outside of actual science, base ideas on science. The only scientific thing that unites people native to Africa is being native to Africa, but because we've decided that "Africa" is a meaningful idea in its own right we desperately try to find some kind of scientific concept which unites people from it.

One can be culturally African, but culture isn't derived from science

Sorry, are you saying at groupings of humans that share physical similarities that we now know are shared DNA giving traits aren't real ?

You can argue that we shouldn't use the word "race" to group these but surly you're not denying that these groups and differences exist ?

What physical similarities define "Africans"?

Mick Mannock wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:.

I'd prefer we stop using it at all, but as bimbo is aptly demonstrating that's an unwinnable battle so let's at least be inclusive about it

So your way of being inclusive is to say there is just one race?

To go down that route, accusations of racism would cease to have any meaning, and discrimination would have to be addressed differently.

Sounds worth a punt, right?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:This whole argument is predicated on the idea that there is some kind of scientific means of deploying the concept of "race", but there isn't. We don't, outside of actual science, base ideas on science. The only scientific thing that unites people native to Africa is being native to Africa, but because we've decided that "Africa" is a meaningful idea in its own right we desperately try to find some kind of scientific concept which unites people from it.

One can be culturally African, but culture isn't derived from science

Sorry, are you saying at groupings of humans that share physical similarities that we now know are shared DNA giving traits aren't real ?

You can argue that we shouldn't use the word "race" to group these but surly you're not denying that these groups and differences exist ?

What physical similarities define "Africans"?

Africa is a continent you tit. African Americans are for the most part Bantu, and that's what people are referring too. Also in Africa you have Nilotics, Khushites, Semities, San, and Europeans, etc.

You're making my point for me

Seneca of the Night wrote: Give Michael Johnson a call:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... eview.html

One of the great tragedies of our age is that an entire generation has been brainwashed into not noticing what is right in front of their eyes. It's been a mighty trick, one that to me is incomprehensible, but there you go, and we have our very own representative on this bored.

I've genuinely had flat earthers say basically the same thing to me as far as "brainwashed into not noticing what is right in front of their eyes" goes

[quote="Chuckles1188"][quote="Mick Mannock"][quote="Seneca of the Night"][quote="Chuckles1188"].[quote]

I'd prefer we stop using it at all, but as bimbo is aptly demonstrating that's an unwinnable battle so let's at least be inclusive about it[/quote][/quote]

So your way of being inclusive is to say there is just one race?[/quote]
To go down that route, accusations of racism would cease to have any meaning, and discrimination would have to be addressed differently.[/quote]

Sounds worth a punt, right?[/quote] It might be. However we might have to start by reducing the number of groupings who some believe are a race. Muslims for example.

Which suggests that appealing to science when trying to understand human behaviour is a fool's errand.

So.

Let's ask again - why is "Muslim" not a race?

Mick Mannock wrote:It might be. However we might have to start by reducing the number of groupings who some believe are a race. Muslims for example.

Am I compelled to start there? Couldn't I start with "white" instead?

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:This whole argument is predicated on the idea that there is some kind of scientific means of deploying the concept of "race", but there isn't. We don't, outside of actual science, base ideas on science. The only scientific thing that unites people native to Africa is being native to Africa, but because we've decided that "Africa" is a meaningful idea in its own right we desperately try to find some kind of scientific concept which unites people from it.

One can be culturally African, but culture isn't derived from science

Sorry, are you saying at groupings of humans that share physical similarities that we now know are shared DNA giving traits aren't real ?

You can argue that we shouldn't use the word "race" to group these but surly you're not denying that these groups and differences exist ?

What physical similarities define "Africans"?

Sorry , do I need to split into sub saharans , North African etc and give the obvious traits? You know full well what I mean and pedantry is an odd route to go post your declaration of words and meanings being the users choice.

I can of course give descriptions, and biologists and geneticists can go much further. I'm all for their being "no race" then of course you'd have to agree "Muslim" isn't a race.

Seneca of the Night wrote: No, you're playing silly games conflating two entirely different things.

You've got me and bimboman confused

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:This whole argument is predicated on the idea that there is some kind of scientific means of deploying the concept of "race", but there isn't. We don't, outside of actual science, base ideas on science. The only scientific thing that unites people native to Africa is being native to Africa, but because we've decided that "Africa" is a meaningful idea in its own right we desperately try to find some kind of scientific concept which unites people from it.

One can be culturally African, but culture isn't derived from science

Sorry, are you saying at groupings of humans that share physical similarities that we now know are shared DNA giving traits aren't real ?

You can argue that we shouldn't use the word "race" to group these but surly you're not denying that these groups and differences exist ?

What physical similarities define "Africans"?

Sorry , do I need to split into sub saharans , North African etc and give the obvious traits? You know full well what I mean and pedantry is an odd route to go post your declaration of words and meanings being the users choice.

I can of course give descriptions, and biologists and geneticists can go much further. I'm all for their being "no race" then of course you'd have to agree "Muslim" isn't a race.

I'm fine with saying Muslim isn't a race on the condition that simultaneously we say that "white" and "black" aren't races, and don't treat people differently on the basis of their membership of those groups. Which means changing society pretty radically.

Is it kind of arguing semantics here.
Whether the bloke was being a racist or a bigot (he told Datsiyari to go back to Uran so he was definitely being racist there) is kind of beyond the point. He was being a wanker and should be called on it. Thankfully he has been.

Saying Muslims arent a race so he wasnt racist is a plain and sime deflecrion of what is going on.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:It might be. However we might have to start by reducing the number of groupings who some believe are a race. Muslims for example.

Am I compelled to start there? Couldn't I start with "white" instead?

Start where you like. Will you be finished by lunchtime?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote: Give Michael Johnson a call:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... eview.html

One of the great tragedies of our age is that an entire generation has been brainwashed into not noticing what is right in front of their eyes. It's been a mighty trick, one that to me is incomprehensible, but there you go, and we have our very own representative on this bored.

I've genuinely had flat earthers say basically the same thing to me as far as "brainwashed into not noticing what is right in front of their eyes" goes

I've never met a flt earther. But on a clear day with binoculars you can see the masts of shops over the horizon before their bulk. Or the tips of mountains and not their base. Or the curvature of the earth from a tall mountain.

So they'd have to be reaching to deny the evidence of their eyes. However, stick a six year old child in a room with a Somalian, an Icelander, and a Korean, and ask them if they notice anything, and they will.

Stick a six year old child in a room with a Ghanaian, a Kenyan and a Swaziland native and they will notice something. But it could very well be the wrong thing.

Farva wrote:Is it kind of arguing semantics here.
Whether the bloke was being a racist or a bigot (he told Datsiyari to go back to Uran so he was definitely being racist there) is kind of beyond the point. He was being a wanker and should be called on it. Thankfully he has been.

Saying Muslims arent a race so he wasnt racist is a plain and sime deflecrion of what is going on.

This

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote: No, you're playing silly games conflating two entirely different things.

You've got me and bimboman confused

I haven't. You've argued this before, and so have a few others. I've read a few books arguing the non-existence of 'race' or whatever you want to call it, and indeed, even the UN have declared that it doesn't exist. It is the very definition of stupidity, and most anthropoligical schools should be immediately closed down.

Something something slabs of sweeping generalisations slamming down on my head or some bullshit.

And yeah, "Africa is a continent not a unified area which can be used to predict biological traits" is my point, raised in response to bimbo's attempt to paint my position as ridiculous because of Sickle Cell Disease. You are making my point for me

Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?

Chuckles1188 wrote:Which suggests that appealing to science when trying to understand human behaviour is a fool's errand.

So.

Let's ask again - why is "Muslim" not a race?

Because however everybody and everything else in the world chooses to define race bar you and that mental American women who decided she was "black" race has little or not element of choice attached to it, whether it is used as a biological reference word or geographical and cultural.

Muslim is a choice of belief and cannot be construed as anything else except by wilful stupidity.