Am I sexist ?

[Aqualung]

I do apologize if it looked like I was directing that at you, AL. I was replying to Michel's original post, and did not realize that my post would follow your post and that, because of that, it might look like the statement was being directed at you. It was not.

Ah, I see.

 

[Ody]

I feel the same. Just as a woman getting beat up angers me more than a man getting beaten up. I think that we are conditioned through life to protect women. So when something like this happens, we react more strongly. Sexist, no. Caring, yes.

Ya I think its a thing based from our genes, but with my poor knowledge on genetics it could be wrong

 

[jeffrey]

Yep.

You're not bigoted towards whites. You're racists.

Dictionary.com: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]Because someone might feel compassion towards a victim of a hate crime does not make them a racist.

 

[jeffrey]

If you feel more compassion toward a black male victim of hate crime than a white male victim of hate crime, then yes.

Once again, From dictionary.com
adj : blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view" Just becose you feel more compassion towards one then the other, does not make them bigoted

 

[Aqualung]

Dictionary.com: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]Because someone might feel compassion towards a victim of a hate crime does not make them a racist.

Here's a different definition. I''m sure you saw it while you were searching furtively for that one definition that actually fit your needs. "Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women." That was a discrimination based on gender. Here's discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice." Michel's compassion was based on the fact that she was a girl, not on individual merrit (and was therefore discriminatory). Since the discrimination had to do with sex, not race or size or anything else, it was sexism.

 

[jeffrey]

Here's a different definition. I''m sure you saw it while you were searching furtively for that one definition that actually fit your needs. "Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women." That was a discrimination based on gender. Here's discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice." Michel's compassion was based on the fact that she was a girl, not on individual merrit (and was therefore discriminatory). Since the discrimination had to do with sex, not race or size or anything else, it was sexism.

Predjudice:
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.How is this adverse? And by the way, I'm not like you. I don't have to "search furtively". In fact, Try pulling it. up. It's the 1st one you come upon. Let's try this definition of discrimination:discrimination n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudiceHow is this unfair? Or do you think that the men in the police force think it's unfair that some people might show more sympathy for a female gunned down then a male counterpart. Key word. More

 

[Aqualung]

Who said anything about prejudice? You're throwing in random words. Michel asked if he was sexist, not prejudiced. I gave a definition of sexist. It didn't mention prejudice either. One of the definitions of discrimination was prejudice, but by no means the only one.

BTW: I like your new avatar.

 

[jeffrey]

Who said anything about prejudice? You're throwing in random words. Michel asked if he was sexist, not prejudiced. I gave a definition of sexist. It didn't mention prejudice either. One of the definitions of discrimination was prejudice, but by no means the only one.

BTW: I like your new avatar.

Raed the definition of discrimination....Again, just for you discrimination n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

 

[Aqualung]

YOU read the definition. Again, just for you : Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit

 

[jeffrey]

BTW: I like your new avatar.

Thank you. Got the pc back up and running. No more from the phone while at home.

 

[Aqualung]

Thank you. Got the pc back up and running. No moer from the phone while at home.

Oh yeah. i forgot you do everything from a phone. That's got to be a huge pain.

 

[jeffrey]

YOU read the definition. Again, just for you : Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit

Why not use ALL the words, just not the 1st part..
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

 

[Aqualung]

Because there's a semi-colon in the middle, meaning they're two different, pretty much unrelated points.

 

[jeffrey]

Oh yeah. i forgot you do everything from a phone. That's got to be a huge pain.

DID everything. Can't copy and paste, search. etc, etc.

 

[jeffrey]

Because there's a semi-colon in the middle, meaning they're two different, pretty much unrelated points.

I GOT to hear this one. How can thet be unrelated? It's all part of the definition? When you have two otherwise complete sentences that you want to connect to form one long sentence, you use a semicolon between them.

 

[Aqualung]

I GOT to hear this one. How can thet be unrelated? It's all part of the definition? When you have two otherwise complete sentences that you want to connect to form one long sentence, you use a semicolon between them.

Their two definitions, related in that they're definitions for the same word (and thereby seperated with a semi colon) and sort of related in connotation, but still, they're seperated.

 

[pdoel]

Because there's a semi-colon in the middle, meaning they're two different, pretty much unrelated points.

Actually, you are incorrect. If they were two completely unrelated points, they would have to be in different definitions.

That's why when there are multiple definitions, you will see them numbered. If it's in a paragraph form, they would have to be separated by a period to show the end of one thought, and the start of the next.

Being within one sentence, it would be VERY poor form to have two completely different definitions, within the same explanation.

 

[pdoel]

He's showing discriminatory compassion. He's not showing compassion equally to both sexes, but prejudicially showing more to one sex over the other.

Not necessarily. I think we're looking at one isolated incident, and assuming it's the same across the board. Now, I realize that Michel himself said that if he saw this news report about a man, he wouldn't have felt as much sorrow. But is that really true?

Different triggers cause different emotions. I typically get very emotional when I hear a news story of a child being killed, or when an elderly person's home is broken into, and they are killed. Does that mean I hate anyone between those ages?

Hardly. For the child, I feel sorry because their life was cut short. For the elderly, I think of someone who probably was unable to fight off the intruder.

I would bet that if Michel had heard a news report about a male police officer who was killed, and it mentioned that he left behind a wife and three children, his heart would ache just as much as it did for the woman.

If he heard a story about a homeless woman who was addicted to crack being killed, I would bet he wouldn't feel as much sorrow as he did for the female cop.

All of these incidents can trigger different emotions. I think it's a bit presumptious to judge based on one story, and say that Michel is sexist.

 

[Aqualung]

Why do I always wind up having debates with you?

They're not completely unrelated. They're related because sometimes the connotation is the same. But they're different. If you have A; B; C you can have A without necessarily having B or C.

 

[pdoel]

Why do I always wind up having debates with you?

They're not completely unrelated. They're related because sometimes the connotation is the same. But they're different. If you have A; B; C you can have A without necessarily having B or C.

Um . . . .

Because there's a semi-colon in the middle, meaning they're two different, pretty much unrelated points.

You just contradicted yourself. I think if this were a pointed debate, you would have just lost.

When it comes to definitions, there are certain rules. For instance, you cannot use the word you are defining in the definition itself. In your example, you could not use two "pretty much unrelated, different points" within the same definition. That's a contradiction, not a definition.