Hi Peter,

>Insulting I can imagine. For example, muslims feel insulted all too soon. Words that I regard to be sensible remarks are often regarded by them as insulting. But can you imagine that you could have said (being that NS employee) "hey, you black rat!"?

Sure, That is why I said, it is not wise to do so. Just because of the sensitivity. But that in itself does not make it discrimination (by law).

>So, instead of listening to the 'wise voice inside' you would not hesitate and go for it, convinced as you are that it is not discriminating. Hmmm..

Well people might have verbal reflexes, meaning they say something before they (can) think about it. Though esspecially through an online forum I might think twice, but in real life I might say something I might regret later. No-one is perfect. But in topics of discrimination I don't think I have ever done this, because I just was not raised this way.

>>Yes, I know, but you can't convict someone for saying something that is by definition not discriminating. Everyone knew his motives, but essentially he never/seldom said anything that he could be convicted for (Once he was convicted, but I truly do not remember for what exactly). The point is that, even though someone may be a racists, it does not make its statements discriminating.

>You do have a point here. Indeed, the judges only seldom saw arguments in law to convict him.


>>The context is important, but then the sentence should in itself at least be explainable as beeing discriminating. IMO, the former example simply misses the criteria: By no means any litteraly man could draw the conclusion he said/ment "All blacks are rats" in any circumstance.

>Where does discrimination (of blacks) stop:
>1 All black are rats.
>2 Many blacks are rats.
>3 Some blacks are rats.
>4 This black is a rat.
>5 This person is a rat.

No.2 indeed might be something difficult, and subject to interpretation of the context of 'many'. 3 definitely is not discrimination anymore. O.K. lets change the context a little when I say the following about maroccans in Amsterdam.

1. All maroccan in Amsterdam are criminal
2. Many maroccan in Amsterdam are criminal
3. Some maroccan in Amsterdam are criminal
4. This maroccan in Amsterdam is a criminal
5. This person in Amsterdam is a criminal.

Where does discrimination stop in your opinion. If different from your example, could you give me a reason why so.


>I think it stops at 5. I think you think it stops at 2 or 3. For you, the group aspect is essential. For me, discrimination also exists if people make statements like "most are okay, but some of them are really just bastards". Discrimination is fully linked to generalization. Many people deny they do discriminate "because I even have a black friend".

Indeed it is fully linked to generisations. If you talk about 'some' or perhaps even 'many' you're not making generalisations anymore but talking about a specific group within the specified population. How the relative 'some' or 'many' is distributed is not specified thereby not beeing a generalisation unless many means something like "Most of them".

For example:

1. All muslim are terrorists
2. Many muslim are terrorists
3. Some muslim are terrorists
4. This muslim is a terrorist
5. This person is a terrorist.

If we talk about no.3, it is a given fact. How could it be discrimination?

Walter,