threadID=1038840

This is your thread and you have commented in it since his post in it. So either you haven't read all of your own thread or you have read AWB.

And even if I worked on Sunday - It's 6 PM, after standard business hours. You really are a dense fucktard, aren't you?

How would I know what time it is near year Draug? What an illogical presumption. It could be Monday where you are. Did you ever hear of the international date line? Probably not. I don't think they have a comic book that describes the international line.

.....or I don't worry about who makes stupid statements that aren't to me. I know that something a troll like you wouldn't consider.

So Draug, you didn't respond to my post on intent being irrelevant to truth. So what do I win? A picture of you with a dumb look on your face with two hands behind your back unable to find your ass?

Well, Emac, because anyone with even a moderate attention spans knows who I am and where I live. You know I 'm an American, which means it is Sunday unless I am over seas, and if I am, odds are it is before the work day begins on Monday as it is 6:20 am in China right now and most of Europe is asleep right now.

And the dateline runs through the Bering Strait.

I responded by pointing out that truth =/= fact.

But here is a fact for you. There are 6 times as many Nobel Peace prize winners in the Muslim world than at Trinity College, Cambridge.

But it is really simple for an educated person to understand (so stop flipping burgers for a few mintues, the folks at the McDonald's drive thru will unjderstand).

Posting a fact is making a statement. Statements have intent.

so the fact is that, a fact, but the statement is bigoted if it's intent was bigoted.

It's 10:30 am Monday in New Zealand and 8:30 am in the eastern part of Australia. So unless I was in one of those or parts of Russia, it's pretty obvious I am not at work.

In short, all of the US is on Sunday and all of Europe is either late night Sunday or very very early Monday right now (i.e. before 6 AM).

'The intent of the speakers is irrelevant when judging a statement's truth.' - very good, but you were not asking about the truth of the statement, you were asking about the rascist content.

Draug has given a few great examples of what you are blatantly ignoring, are you just trying to rile people up, or did you come to push your view as 'correct'

Dawkins has a well known history of saying things to antagonise people (a tactic i disapprove of). He specifically wants to attack religion as damaging to society. And his statement is offensive, intended as such.

Guess what, he's entitled to freedom of speech.

Don't you find it ironic that Dawkins chose a Christian school for his fact? It's full name is "The Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity in the Town and University of Cambridge".

In a way, Dawkins complemented Christianity (specifically, the Church of England) :-)

And thanks ora.

I am trying to become the kinder, gentler, more centered and balanced Draugnar.

Actually my question was is an objective fact racist. Draugnar has ignored that question and focused on the intent of the speaker which is irrelevant to the truth. You also focus on Dawkins instead of the topic of thread. How can the truth be offensive to a logical mind? You find Dawkins offensive obviously, but that isn't the question. Ignoring the question doesn't answer it.
It

Say ti all you want, but fact =/= truth.

But, I will say the fact behind the statement is not bigoted (Muslim isn't a race. Islam is a religion). Just as the fact that the Muslim world has 6 times as many Nobel Peace Prizes as the same college is a fact.

The bottom line is that objective facts can in fact be used to further racist agendas. One might ask what percentage of the Nobel Prize selection committees have been North Africans/Middle Easterners, for example, and if the number is small, is it racist to point out that fact?

What can't be used to further racist agendas?

Kittens

Actually, if you show a bunch of white kittens playing and one little black kitten sitting in a box, not allowed to get out then put the tag line "as things should be" over the screen, you could use kittens to further a racist agenda.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Ok you got me there draug.

Litter ally LOL at that one.

See what I did there? Litter ... Kittens ...

Ok Emacs, your questions then seems pointless. No pure facts do not hold any human biases or intentions, facts can't of themselves be rascist (def: rascism - hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.) bigoted (def: bigot -
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. ) sexist, fascist, misogynistic, or elitist. Those are things humans for humans.

How and ever, this is not an interesting or useful way of looking at the world.

Well, I think his point was that writers everywhere are criticizing dawkins for the tweet. Saying it's racist.

So, to answer your question about whether a fact can be racist:

Someone else said it and they are right - the *use* of a fact can be racist.

Example:

There is a man, call him BLACK_FACT_BOT. He enters conversations about race, history, etc. And then all he does is state facts about the pitiable conditions of black slaves in America in the 19th century. People ask him to stop, ask him questions about it, he just responds with more of these facts. It would go something like this:

REGULAR GUY: So anyway, I was just wanting to know what your opinion of the whole Trayvon Martin thing is?

BLACK_FACT_BOT: In the southern US in the 1840s, black slave women were chosen at will by their slave owners and repeatedly used as objects of sexual gratification.

GUY: I'm not sure what that really has to do with this?

BLACK_FACT_BOT: Marriages between slaves were not recognized and thus it was not considered rape or adultery for a white master to use his female slaves as sex slaves. In fact, it was considered normal and proper.

GUY: This has nothing to do with the conversation and is making me frankly a bit uncomfortable.

BLACK_FACT_BOT: After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan hunted black men suspected of rape and other crimes and lynched them, often by cutting off their fingers, splaying their internal organs, and hanging them from trees.

GUY: Okay this is too much. You need to stop.

BLACK_FACT_BOT: In West Africa in the 1880s, entire kingdoms of black people were overrun by white soldiers with advanced firearms. The treasures from these palaces were taken systematically and sent back to Europe, where many of the relics and objects rest today in museums.

Do you see how this can become racist?

It begins to beg the question - why is this person saying this fact?

In Dawkins' case, the implication is pretty clear - Muslims are stupid.

Of course Islam is not a race, but the sentiment is similar to racism, in that it is bigoted.

It also conveniently ignores some other facts, such as the fact that the Nobel Prize had not been invented when Muslims were making some of the most significant scientific and mathematic advances on which Cambridge's intellectual foundations were built in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Orathaic, it is much more interesting to focus on the objective facts than focus on the illogical statements completely invalidated by their obsession with their own perceptions of Dawkins motivations than the truth of the statement itself. Thucydides post is a perfect example not focusing on objective facts at all and treating perceptions as facts which I find uninteresting and useless.

Conveniently, Emac has decided to ignore the fact when he suggested he didn't know what part of the world I was in, that the first few hours of business had just started in Australia and that most of Europe (where I would likely be from if not the US) was fast asleep in bed.

Funny how he never had a comeback for that.

Well, I'm off to bed. Emac's trolling and lies will have to wait for another day.

since the International Dateline runs through the Bering Straight
can Sarah Palin see it from her porch ??? (ho ho ho )

to the thread's main discussion
there are facts that are "objectively true"
what a person deduces from any of those facts can be subjective and not necesarily
"objectively true"
as Dwaugnar (ouch this hurts --ho ho ho ) comments, it may be a consequence of the selection method used to award Nobel prizes.
also the two Universities, Cambridge & Oxford attract highly talented and hard working individuals from all over the world, so I suspect that a fair number of the Nobel prize winners that make up the nominated total may well be "non UK" citizens
that may be a "objective fact" what a person deduces from that is another matter entirely eg "the UK relies on immigrants to provide intellectual achievement"
and I do not make that claim, I offer it as a "hypothetical" example

Sorry but how can be religion connected to Nobel price?
If someone does the connection and say that any religion has more Nobel prices, its racism.unless you are just based on facts and you like to point it out as a curiosity. But it was not the case in that particular tweet.

We identify our politicians as Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. We identify our Supreme Court Justices the same way. Yet its racist to identify Nobel prize winners in the same manner?