>Sorry spirit- acceptance and acknowledgement are
>two different things you know
>that. If you insist tht
>the judge must accept race
>ideology in order to acknowledge
>the inproprieties of either group
>then the analogy must be
>applied laterally and that is
>to say the judge must
>also be gay to rule
>on cases about gay people.

No, the judge just has to understand that gays are a group which can be discriminated against. Discrimination law is based on group theory. There is no legal remedy for "individual discrimination" ("they didn't hire me because I'm me"), only group-based discrimination ("they didn't hire me because I'm black/gay/Catholic, etc"). Non-recognized groups (ugly people, for example) cannot find relief under discrimination law because they are not legally recognized as a group...thus, you could not prevail in court arguing that you were discriminated against because you were ugly, under current discrimination law.

If your proposal were adopted, "racial" groups would be broken down into ethnic types. Because many ethnic backgrounds cross racial barriers (a black person with an Irish paternal grandfather, a Jamaican paternal grandmother, an African-American maternal grandmother, etc...would be classified as what?). In a group-based form of law like discrimination law, splintering large groups into potentially hundreds of small factions based on ethnicity and culture would impractical and IMHO, unworkable.

>As
>for judges- being that they
>are supposedly "impartial" then perhaps
>they SHOULD be prohibitted from
>allowing such ideologies to influence
>their judgement- but it doesnt
>mean that if a white
>person came in the courtroom
>the judge's hands would be
>tied- thats preposterous (you tend
>to do that alot)

Their hands wouldn't be tied, it would just be immeasurably more difficult to prove discrimination. The ethnic histories of the parties would have to be determined, where in most racial cases, the race of the parties is physically apparent and accepted as a given, based on skin tone/hair texture, etc.

>The problem with your extremist argument
>is that you suppose there
>is no middle ground between
>telling the lie and acting
>as if the lie does
>not exist- there Is a
>middle ground its called telling
>the truth.

There is no "truth". Ethnicity, such as Russian, French, German, etc. isn't based on scientific principles any more than race, because what's the true difference (beyond culture) between an **American** of French-German descent and an American of Irish-French descent? After years of integration, the difference is nil. Would you extend discrimination law to cases involving a lack of people of Irish descent in a management structure?

>Any person that says they are
>"white" but does not admit
>and accept the premises of
>that ideology is NOT telling
>the truth.

Actually, most white people just consider themselves white because society says so. Same with black people. If a black baby was born in a "white" town where no one made note of his/her race at all, that baby would have no racial consciousness, regardless of perceived biological differences in skin tone/hair texture. Racial consciousness is societal.

>Any government that encourages people to
>classify themselves under such ideologies
>and professes that they are
>a valid means of quantifying
>human kind- is also not
>telling the truth.

The government...you keep harping on that. However, it's PEOPLE moreso than any official government policy that keeps race intact. People comprise the government anyway...I tire of people who refer to 'government' as if government is on some mountaintop...the people ARE the government....they elect (and ARE) the officials who run it, they staff the public agencies.

>Anybody who claims that a judge
>is only beholden to "acknowledge"
>certain ideologies but endorses and
>encourages that the same judge
>should "accept" the implicitly prejudicial
>and demaning ideology of race
>is tad confused.

Not really. There is nothing implicitly demeaning about race, unless you question the entire black liberation struggle. Noting your racial background is a means of creating group solidarity. It's based on physical racial traits such as skin tone/hair color, which generally appear throughout the racial group (there are exceptions to everything of course, thus there are blacks who "look white", but can trace their immediate ancestry to someone who "looks black").

This is the OkayActivist board. I don't see any activism in your ideology...changing the names doesn't change the social reality...if whites are broken into their individual ethnic groups, those ethnic groups still control a disproportionate amount of the world's resources.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.