3RU7AL

It’s necessary if the goal is to get to heaven and if you’re a logical person than it should be.

Disagreement doesn’t mean subjective,

Everything you mentioned as "cultural issues" are symptoms of POVERTY.

In part, I think so. Entirely, I think not.

Public policies addressing cultural issues should be specific to the problems sought to be addressed and not have any class or race based criteria imo.

I do follow according to my conscience, though. 

The KKK do not consider the bible to be their axiom.  What a load of nonsense. 

Roughly speaking, the three moral axioms are (i) Live and let live, (ii) Tell the truth to those who have a right to know it, and (iii) Respect the environment. These are subject to three requirements, namely, utility, reasonableness, and beauty.

Disagreement doesn’t mean subjective, people disagree on whether or not the earth is round or flat, it doesn’t make the issue subjective.

Objective morality is morality that almost everybody in the world has agreed upon, no matter what nation, no matter what century. One example is this: everybody should take care of his or her own family. One cannot find any exception to this rule in any law-abiding community in the world or in history.

Data from hospitals suggests than black babies die significantly more often when they're under the care of white doctors

Data on resume response rates suggest that having a black sounding name significantly decreases one's odds of landing a job.

Data on pull-over rates suggests that race is a significant factor in causing a driver to be pulled over.

Thanks for the ping.....

Either full response to my post or you will get nothing.

Obviously logically incorrect. If someone says "there is no such thing as race" they are using the word "race" but are not supporting the concept of races. Similarly if someone defines their anti-raciam as an opposition to the idea of race at all. Are you racist because you have used the word race and therefore reinforced the false idea that race exists? According to your own argument, yes!

How is that relevant in racism? I don't choose friends (at all most times) based on those qualities. This isn't applicable, if I answered, "yes" obviously I would be lying, if I said, "no," then you would somehow try to twist it. I don't see the connection in this question whatsoever, I also don't see how this answers my question. Are you or are you not against private racism?

THERE IS SUCH A THING AS RACE

Also, only public? So you agree with racism as long as no one hears it? What the hell does that mean? 

Again, you literally took my words out of context. Please actually employ reason next time.

Yes, agreed. That doesn't equate to anti-raciam being racist.

But being against discrimination based on skin color, how is that wrong? Explain.

So even if racism use to mean that, it no longer does. 

In terms of actually biology etc, race is not real.

Then its not a categorical imperative, for it to be so, it must be non-contradicting in all matters, all of these are unique maxims, and simple shifting what is meant by the moral standards. 

...you’ve still yet to prove subjective morality.

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF

(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

In all circumstances, or as moral axioms? Definitely not.

In other words, you believe truth to be a fact that is believed by a number of people, and then used an axiom for further discussion?

If that is your understanding, then why do you say it has to be "inter-subjective" Unless I misunderstood you're meaning of that word, what precisely do you mean by inter-subjective?

Truth as in what is true, or what is comporting to reality, as in - a fact. You seem to have a strange definition of the word truth.

Kant's whole deal? Yes. Do I think Kant's view is correct. No. See my interactions with Sum1hugme's on the subject.

Truth would necessarily have to be objective,

...but ideas are valuable on their own merit, not who thinks them up.

Mathematics is objectively true.

...used what if I were to say 1+1=2 but without that presumption...

...and I think that they are practically objective from my P.O.V as a human with a mind...

Wrong. Based on the definition of objective, something is only objective if it true independent of the mind, I ask you to demonstrate that morality is that.

saying that one race is superior to another is the textbook example of racism. It is not possible to be more racist than that. He believed that black people were genetically inferior to white people. There is no constructive conversation possible with someone like that. 

You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.

From inception, the OT law pointed to a better way - the Lord Jesus Christ and "living by grace."

Racism is what I want to redefine,

Oh my god, I am actually kind of livid, you took my quotes completely out of context. RACISM, as in the term racism, does more good than harm. Because it gives a group of actions a label that can easily be rallied against.

Yes, discrimination based on skin color is a thing, therefore I call that racism, as a useful term.

You are flatly incorrect, about dismissing the notion of racism.

It is irresponsible of you, because your position implies that there is no weight behind the races that people have been attributed.

Such weights: White privlleage,

...and Racism against all different sorts.

You are looking at only the very surface level,

...it is a bad argument for the same reasons, "I don't see any color/race" is a bad argument. 

It is true that people are discriminated based on skin color.

It does more good than it does harm,

henceforth we can simply redefine it,

On top of that, atheism is not even a worldview.

Because it was fabricated and has been fabricated for hundreds of years, it has become a real thing.

You are flatly incorrect.