|
|
|
|
|
|
by porsager
1142 days ago
|
|
|
Wow. What a dishonest way of pulling things out of context to paint a false picture! > "When women..." - This was in the context of describing how precious women are because they are the ones who bear our future children. Not because they are lesser people in any way. [Chapter 11 - page 32] > "Today, we..." - Again, if you actually read the thing, here's the point from that section: "Second, apart from considerations of this sort, there is no intrinsic reason to favor male over female politicians.". The silver lining point was made in relation to a description of females leaning towards social welfare schemes, which of course is the opposite, of the goal of the author, in his cause for a stateless society. > "It is eminently..." I think it's your own wishes coloring this section, so there's no point in going through it. Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist? |
|
|
The whole thing in my view, along with other chapters - his argument is essentially that discrimination laws should be removed because the stereotype that ‘blacks are less productive’ is true according to his findings, so people should be allowed to discriminate on a racial basis and as long as we trust the free market and remove regulation everyone will be treated as they should be.
And the part where he decides to indirectly compare not-stereotyping black people to not-stereotyping tigers, with the underlying implication of ‘your nature is your nature’. It’s a small extract from a book that continuously demonstrates a worldview that is racist in my view.