Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I think it is very prejudicial. Racist... the action did separate a race and if this was a speech to "shape up these men", it could have been done elsewhere or to all races, I see this as race based discrimination so an argument on whether the judge was being racist here is debatable. Hateful is a strong word and should not have been used. You make a very good point here.
|
You know, you've been saying that this is "prejudicial" since the beginning. I'm still not clear what you mean.
Did he discriminate against the non-blacks by having them leave the courtroom? Did he discriminate against blacks by singling them out for a "come to Jesus" lecture? Something can't just BE prejudicial in the abstract, just because something happened that acknowledged the existence of race in a public building--it has to actually put somebody up and somebody else down. My question is: against whom exactly is it prejudicial? Because I'm not clear at all about that.
Let's see, a definition might give some focus to the question I'm asking here.
prejudicial, adj.
1. Detrimental; injurious.
2. Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions
How EXACTLY is this detrimental, injurious, or causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions? I'm not saying it's NOT. It might be. I guess I'm saying that I'm no longer willing to take your assertion that it's prejudicial at face value. So supply us with some more of the logic that underlies your assertion, please. I can actually see how I would answer, if I were back in high school debate and assigned to argue your side, but I'm much more interested in your answer.