Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
60 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,413 Year: 11,161/23,288 Month: 413/1,763 Week: 52/328 Day: 52/49 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Posts: 3825
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001

Message 211 of 759 (639801)
11-04-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
11-04-2011 12:28 AM

General statements and stereotypes (rice division)
Taz writes:

I was attending a debate at a nearby university. The discussion was about general statements and stereotypes. At one point, a question was posed what would make a general statement ok to make. Someone said "asian people tend to eat rice".

Of course this got all the liberal commies all riled up. They called it racist and that you shouldn't make a statement like that.

My "bolding".

Rrhain writes:

And most likely, they're right. Why? Because nobody says something like, "Asian people tend to eat rice," in the context of nutritional anthropology.

Per nationmaster.com:

The top 9 rice consuming countries are Asian.

There is some per capita information and other discussion here.

There sure is a lot of rice eaten in Asian countries. "Asian people tend to eat rice", to me, qualifies as a good "general statements and stereotype". I have to side with Taz on this one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 12:28 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 1:45 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Posts: 3825
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001

Message 398 of 759 (702155)
07-01-2013 10:11 PM

Side note - Bill Clinton, DOMA, then and now
There was an interesting little thing over at "Dispatches from the Culture Wars"

The Chutzpah of Bill Clinton

Read there, including the comments, but the short version:

DOMA passed by House and Senate with 2/3+ majorities (veto override levels). Clinton thought it was a bad and unconstitutional law, but he signed it anyway, and then defended it. But did DOMA passage derail what could have been an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment? Something bad that stopped something even worse?

See the stuff at the link.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2013 11:58 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 400 by yenmor, posted 07-02-2013 1:54 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020