AverageWhiteBoy, to categorize human beings racially you use visual, biological characteristics. Muslims are not a race. Americans are not a race.
The fact that I made no statements anywhere in this thread referring to Muslims as a race demonstrates how stupid a motherfucker you are, and also belies your moniker. You statement qualifies you as a below average boy in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that author's all over the world are calling Dawkin's statement racism, and I clearly pointed this out.
Do you know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground or are you just another Peter Griffin?

Philcore, I'm pissing people off so what is the point. I always here how irrational the world is, wars over nothing, poverty in a world of plenty, but when you start demanding logical thinking and discussion you are become a stupid mother fucker.

I'll just go read my book and hopefully find someone interested in a logic based discussion at the bar I'm heading to. If you can't find logic at the bottom of a glass at least the journey was worth it. Cheers.

What statement? I asked a question, and you answered it quite well.

Now go back to fucking yourself.

Drinking with you sounds awful.

I didn't see anyone pissed off. Some people will fuck with you for no good reason, and others will try to get you riled up so that you respond in a dickish way, then they'll fuck with you for that. Personally I thought it was a good discussion. You are a little to quick o assume someone is arguing with you though, when in fact they were agreeing. But it didn't piss me off that you did that to me, I looked at it as a teaching moment.

You really aren't as good at this logic thing as you think you are, but it's good that you are reading about it. I wish more people would take the initiative to actually learn about logical arguments like you are. Someday you'll Reread this thread and think "oh, now I see what philcore was talkIng about, damn he's a smart mutuerfucker!"

@ Emac: "Muslims are not a race."

If you accept that Muslims are not a race, why did you start a thread asking whether or not Richard Dawkins tweet about Muslim nobel laureates was racist?

Jamie,
The thread title asks if objective truth can be racist. I don't mention Muslims at all.
I then post the text of Dawkins tweet. I don't mention racism against Muslims at all in that post.
BoSox is the one who says the tweet can be perceived as racist in the next post, and the thread took off on this tangent.

I started the thread to ask if objective truth can be racist.

Phil, When someone asks in their first post to you how stupid a mother fucker you are a logical person would determine they are pissed off.

If your only intention was to ask the question "can objective truth be racist" what was the purpose of mentioning Richard Dawkins' tweet?

You're not making any sense.

Dawkins tweet is an objective truth. Can you call it be racist?
It is a perfectly valid question.

To cut to the chase I do not think Dawkins statement is racist, yet numerous writers/journalists/bloggers called Dawkins tweet racism.

I don't think an objective statement can be racist. The truth is the truth.

@Emacs = what is 'objective truth', well no it can't be rascist. But that is not what you will find in Dawkin's statement - his statement has a social/cultural context, that adds meaning.

I don't need to look up his history to know that he is massively in favour of education, and see winning a nobel prizes as a good thing. It is not a face mentioned in the tweet you quoted, but it is part of the context of his tweet... now follow this logic if you actually care about the topic.

What is wrong with your brain?

Let's try again.

The Dawkins tweet is ABOUT MUSLIMS.

If you ask "Dawkins tweet is an objective truth. Can you call it be racist?" then you ARE asking whether Dawkins' tweet about Muslims is racist. That's *exactly* what you were asking. For you to later say you "didn't mention Muslims" in your OP is nonsense.

should read: 'it is not a fact...'

@Emac: you need to consider the source. I think BelowAverageWhitey falls into my first category, those who will fuck with you for no good reason. Have you ever seen a meaningful contribution to a thread by him? If not, then you have to learn to ignore his comments. Especially if there is some meaningful dialog going on with other posters.

So again, you messed up the logic part. Saying that a logical person would determine they are pissed off, I would say that's not the case at all. A sensitive person might conclude that. But a logical person would conclude that he has nothing to offer and is just trying to get a reaction out of you.

That is, after all the conclusion that I came to, and I'm Spock-like in my logical prowess!

Intent defines result. Did Dawkins intend the tweet to imply something about Muslims? Answer: yes. Then it was a racist comment using a fact to back it up.

Islam is not a race.

Jaime, you don't seem to be able to separate Dawkins from the truth of his statement which isn't a rational way to look at the truth.

Without a doubt Islam is not a race.

OK, so it was a bigoted statement using a fact to support it.

I could just as easily say "More whites graduate from college and more blacks rot in prison". Both are facts but you have to look to the motive of the speaker. In this case my motive was to point out the issue of motives, but it could have been to show that institutional racism still exists or it could be saying blacks are inferior to whites. It is all in the intent.

Dawkins statement could imply that the Nobel voting body is bigoted or that Islam, as a group, doesn't contribute to society what Christianity does (interesting he used a Christian university for his comparison).

Emac - you don't separate the speaker form his statement. The statement is made with an intent (spoken, written, posted, tweeted, irrelevant) and that determines how one should judge it's effect, in this case a bigoted one, not just a random fact.

I give up, Emac. I just give up.

Phil, it isn't logical to expect me to think like you in your statement "I think....."
I believe that was the first post I've seen from Average White Boy. So I think it was perfectly logical given my knowledge of AWB to characterize his post as being pissed off.

"I believe that was the first post I've seen from Average White Boy."

Then you don't pay attention to other threads in which you participate as he has chimed in on a couple other threads you have been *very* active in.

Jaime,
It doesn't matter who made the statement, Barack Obama or Dawkins. The statement is true regardless. A true statement is also not racist.

You are going to ignore my statement about intent. OK. I win as you won't even address the truth (and truth =/= fact).

The intent of the speakers is irrelevant when judging a statement's truth.

Draugnar, since you are obviously stalking me by our own admission please offer evidence that I saw an Average White Boy post before.
I know evidence doesn't matter to trolls, but the question stands.
A slow day screwing up code again?

Again, truth =/= fact. Yes, the statement is of a fact. But judging a statement as to it's factuality is different from judging he statement in it's entirety. Dawkin's intent is the statement. The fact that he made it with a single fact and no additional enhancement is irrelevant to how we judge the statement. Yes, it is fact. And the fact is neither bigoted nor not bigoted. It is a fact. But the statement of that fact has intent. So to say the statement wasn't bigoted (drop the racist crap, we've already ascertained Muslims aren't a race any more than Christians) is a load of crap as the use of the fact as a statement puts intent into it.