Am I a racist?

[urbanrealtor]

Most Arabs in San Diego are Christian or non-religious.

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?[/quote]

An interesting comparison in sub-cultures is the Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish were predominately farmers in the appalachian and southern united US pre-WWII. After the war with industrialization and the consolidation of the farming industry they moved into factories(like blacks) and with the advent of outsourcing had their lively hood taken away again.

Now they predominately work at Wall Marts and meth labs, have no insurance, high crime rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, no high-school degree, etc… Which are now turning into kind of a tweaked-out hillbilly gangster culture with creepy strains of dominionism christianity throughout. The decay in this subculture is getting worse. It’s the “great white underclass” that nobody like to talk about.

I personally would be weary to rent to these people because of the statistics;)

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?[/quote]

An interesting comparison in sub-cultures is the Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish were predominately farmers in the appalachian and southern united US pre-WWII. After the war with industrialization and the consolidation of the farming industry they moved into factories(like blacks) and with the advent of outsourcing had their lively hood taken away again.

Now they predominately work at Wall Marts and meth labs, have no insurance, high crime rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, no high-school degree, etc… Which are now turning into kind of a tweaked-out hillbilly gangster culture with creepy strains of dominionism christianity throughout. The decay in this subculture is getting worse. It’s the “great white underclass” that nobody like to talk about.

I personally would be weary to rent to these people because of the statistics;)

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?[/quote]

An interesting comparison in sub-cultures is the Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish were predominately farmers in the appalachian and southern united US pre-WWII. After the war with industrialization and the consolidation of the farming industry they moved into factories(like blacks) and with the advent of outsourcing had their lively hood taken away again.

Now they predominately work at Wall Marts and meth labs, have no insurance, high crime rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, no high-school degree, etc… Which are now turning into kind of a tweaked-out hillbilly gangster culture with creepy strains of dominionism christianity throughout. The decay in this subculture is getting worse. It’s the “great white underclass” that nobody like to talk about.

I personally would be weary to rent to these people because of the statistics;)

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?[/quote]

An interesting comparison in sub-cultures is the Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish were predominately farmers in the appalachian and southern united US pre-WWII. After the war with industrialization and the consolidation of the farming industry they moved into factories(like blacks) and with the advent of outsourcing had their lively hood taken away again.

Now they predominately work at Wall Marts and meth labs, have no insurance, high crime rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, no high-school degree, etc… Which are now turning into kind of a tweaked-out hillbilly gangster culture with creepy strains of dominionism christianity throughout. The decay in this subculture is getting worse. It’s the “great white underclass” that nobody like to talk about.

I personally would be weary to rent to these people because of the statistics;)

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]

Let me try…

First, I highly doubt most whites would go through the sequence you’ve noted here. Most whites couldn’t care less if one’s ancestors were slaves or slave owners. They only care about what exists in today’s world.

Here’s what they see:

Also according to the Sentencing Project’s web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one. The national rate is 5. 6 to one and the ratios range from 13. 6 to one for Iowa to just under two to one in Hawaii. Connecticut’s rate is about 12 to 1. The Project concluded that Connecticut’s black to white ratio is so high because Connecticut’s rate of white incarceration is very low whereas its rate for black incarceration is a little above the national average.

According to Justice Department data, in 2006 black men were being incarcerated at a rate of 3,042 per 100,000. This data also indicated that

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0008.htm
——————

Based on info from the following link, blacks represent only 12.4% of the general U.S. population. In the link above, it states that they make up 38% of the sentenced inmate population.

Whites represent 74.5% of the general U.S. population, but make up 34% of the sentenced inmate population.

Clearly, ratios matter.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_B02001
—————–

Here, it shows the unemployment rate for African-Americans is twice that of whites:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
——————-

Birth rates for unmarried mothers [indicative of possible poverty level and use of government assistance — another non-PC thing, but we desperately need to address this problem with ALL races/ethnicities]:

White: 48.2%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 33.7%
Black: 72.5%

[pages 47-48]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
————–

TANF by race…again, one must take into consideration the ratios here (2003 stats, most recent I could quickly find — feel free to share more recent data, if it’s available, to show a higher percentage of whites using TANF):

African-American: 38%
White: 31.8%
Hispanic: 25.8%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2003/1008.htm

—————–

We all know it’s politically correct to chastise people who are aware of these numbers, and keep them in the back of their minds when having to make quick (and possibly life-altering) decisions in their daily lives — a survival skill, mind you; and it might make one feel all warm and fuzzy to holler accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” at people who disagree with one’s personal perspective. That being said, it’s irrational to think that people should stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality, just because others find it “offensive” if they don’t.

We will NEVER overcome racism if we are not allowed to discuss the REAL reasons behind many types of “racism” (a word that is used too loosely these days — a quick, verbal javelin to be thrown at one’s opponent when one is unable to honestly discuss the issues). *Real* racism — the kind that is used to kill, injure, or harm others — is evil, and it’s important that we don’t dilute the word “racism” by tossing it around like some used baseball.

If you honestly care about racism, and wish to eliminate it as much as possible, you have to acknowledge the many facts and statistics that justify people’s wariness when dealing with people from certain cultures or races. We cannot solve the problem of racism, if people aren’t willing to *honestly* investigate and define the causes of it. We need to find the *root causes* of it, and fix those first.

Can we please be honest and discuss things like grown adults, or must we always succumb to the lame name-calling that goes on when people lack the knowledge and debating skills needed to address a serious issue in a constructive way?[/quote]

An interesting comparison in sub-cultures is the Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish were predominately farmers in the appalachian and southern united US pre-WWII. After the war with industrialization and the consolidation of the farming industry they moved into factories(like blacks) and with the advent of outsourcing had their lively hood taken away again.

Now they predominately work at Wall Marts and meth labs, have no insurance, high crime rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, no high-school degree, etc… Which are now turning into kind of a tweaked-out hillbilly gangster culture with creepy strains of dominionism christianity throughout. The decay in this subculture is getting worse. It’s the “great white underclass” that nobody like to talk about.

I personally would be weary to rent to these people because of the statistics;)

[NotCranky]

[quote=Josh] I would feel weird if someone starts to say “allah akbark” five times a day in my house.[/quote]

If they are chanting “allah akbark”, you would probably be dealing with a Muslim Sea Lion and it probably would get uncomfortable fast.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Josh] I would feel weird if someone starts to say “allah akbark” five times a day in my house.[/quote]

If they are chanting “allah akbark”, you would probably be dealing with a Muslim Sea Lion and it probably would get uncomfortable fast.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Josh] I would feel weird if someone starts to say “allah akbark” five times a day in my house.[/quote]

If they are chanting “allah akbark”, you would probably be dealing with a Muslim Sea Lion and it probably would get uncomfortable fast.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Josh] I would feel weird if someone starts to say “allah akbark” five times a day in my house.[/quote]

If they are chanting “allah akbark”, you would probably be dealing with a Muslim Sea Lion and it probably would get uncomfortable fast.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Josh] I would feel weird if someone starts to say “allah akbark” five times a day in my house.[/quote]

If they are chanting “allah akbark”, you would probably be dealing with a Muslim Sea Lion and it probably would get uncomfortable fast.

[zzz]

Josh, I don’t know how long your list of criteria was, did you have others, like credit check, income verification, rental history and references, lifestyle habits? When you said, you don’t want a strict Islamic living in your home, did you apply this to other strict religious types of “insert Catholic, Mormon, Latter Day Saint, cult” that may want to hold religious meetings in your home, constantly praying, setting up a shrine in your home, preaching to you, etc? I’m not going to judge your beliefs, but only hope that you don’t stereotype a book by its cover, and took the time to qualify people based on whatever your list was because that would be the intelligent thing.

I can see arguments on both sides for a lot of criteria. If you are not religious at all, and do not want your home to bear crosses, hold bible studies, or if the roommate wants to preach to you and judge you every time you crack open a beer, does that make you a bigot? What if you don’t want a roommate who is elderly, does that constitute ageism? Or too young? What about someone who’s a strict vegan and you’re a cook as much meat as possible person? What about a eliminating people because they are a cross dresser, nudist, or person who legally sells marijuana under a state license for medicinal purposes? What if you’re a gay guy who doesn’t want a straight roommate, does this make the gay guy intolerant, or simply wanting someone who can identify with his sexual preferences?

I certainly don’t condone hate based on race, sex, religion, etc. However, we are all prejudiced, whether we have preferences or dislikes for people based on race, age, sex, religion, beliefs, how they look, habits, values, money, the list can go on and on. We all judge people based on our own filter.

[zzz]

Josh, I don’t know how long your list of criteria was, did you have others, like credit check, income verification, rental history and references, lifestyle habits? When you said, you don’t want a strict Islamic living in your home, did you apply this to other strict religious types of “insert Catholic, Mormon, Latter Day Saint, cult” that may want to hold religious meetings in your home, constantly praying, setting up a shrine in your home, preaching to you, etc? I’m not going to judge your beliefs, but only hope that you don’t stereotype a book by its cover, and took the time to qualify people based on whatever your list was because that would be the intelligent thing.

I can see arguments on both sides for a lot of criteria. If you are not religious at all, and do not want your home to bear crosses, hold bible studies, or if the roommate wants to preach to you and judge you every time you crack open a beer, does that make you a bigot? What if you don’t want a roommate who is elderly, does that constitute ageism? Or too young? What about someone who’s a strict vegan and you’re a cook as much meat as possible person? What about a eliminating people because they are a cross dresser, nudist, or person who legally sells marijuana under a state license for medicinal purposes? What if you’re a gay guy who doesn’t want a straight roommate, does this make the gay guy intolerant, or simply wanting someone who can identify with his sexual preferences?

I certainly don’t condone hate based on race, sex, religion, etc. However, we are all prejudiced, whether we have preferences or dislikes for people based on race, age, sex, religion, beliefs, how they look, habits, values, money, the list can go on and on. We all judge people based on our own filter.

[zzz]

Josh, I don’t know how long your list of criteria was, did you have others, like credit check, income verification, rental history and references, lifestyle habits? When you said, you don’t want a strict Islamic living in your home, did you apply this to other strict religious types of “insert Catholic, Mormon, Latter Day Saint, cult” that may want to hold religious meetings in your home, constantly praying, setting up a shrine in your home, preaching to you, etc? I’m not going to judge your beliefs, but only hope that you don’t stereotype a book by its cover, and took the time to qualify people based on whatever your list was because that would be the intelligent thing.

I can see arguments on both sides for a lot of criteria. If you are not religious at all, and do not want your home to bear crosses, hold bible studies, or if the roommate wants to preach to you and judge you every time you crack open a beer, does that make you a bigot? What if you don’t want a roommate who is elderly, does that constitute ageism? Or too young? What about someone who’s a strict vegan and you’re a cook as much meat as possible person? What about a eliminating people because they are a cross dresser, nudist, or person who legally sells marijuana under a state license for medicinal purposes? What if you’re a gay guy who doesn’t want a straight roommate, does this make the gay guy intolerant, or simply wanting someone who can identify with his sexual preferences?

I certainly don’t condone hate based on race, sex, religion, etc. However, we are all prejudiced, whether we have preferences or dislikes for people based on race, age, sex, religion, beliefs, how they look, habits, values, money, the list can go on and on. We all judge people based on our own filter.

[zzz]

Josh, I don’t know how long your list of criteria was, did you have others, like credit check, income verification, rental history and references, lifestyle habits? When you said, you don’t want a strict Islamic living in your home, did you apply this to other strict religious types of “insert Catholic, Mormon, Latter Day Saint, cult” that may want to hold religious meetings in your home, constantly praying, setting up a shrine in your home, preaching to you, etc? I’m not going to judge your beliefs, but only hope that you don’t stereotype a book by its cover, and took the time to qualify people based on whatever your list was because that would be the intelligent thing.

I can see arguments on both sides for a lot of criteria. If you are not religious at all, and do not want your home to bear crosses, hold bible studies, or if the roommate wants to preach to you and judge you every time you crack open a beer, does that make you a bigot? What if you don’t want a roommate who is elderly, does that constitute ageism? Or too young? What about someone who’s a strict vegan and you’re a cook as much meat as possible person? What about a eliminating people because they are a cross dresser, nudist, or person who legally sells marijuana under a state license for medicinal purposes? What if you’re a gay guy who doesn’t want a straight roommate, does this make the gay guy intolerant, or simply wanting someone who can identify with his sexual preferences?

I certainly don’t condone hate based on race, sex, religion, etc. However, we are all prejudiced, whether we have preferences or dislikes for people based on race, age, sex, religion, beliefs, how they look, habits, values, money, the list can go on and on. We all judge people based on our own filter.

[Author]

Posts