Strange man vs strange woman

I would agree with SatanLucy, I would be with a strange woman but definitely not a strange man, but then we ask what makes a man strange and what makes a woman strange?

Well for example if a woman stares at a man its not strange/weird but if a man stares at a woman it is strange/weird?

How does that make sense?

I'm a bigot then

After considering this, I really can't come up why a reason that racial/gender/anything profiling for the sake of personal safety would be morally wrong in and of itself if it doesn't involve harming the other person. In this case it's literally just "what hypothetical individual would you rather encounter" and not who would you hire/buy from/etc. In a hypothetical like this, all you have to go on is statistics and generalizations. Maybe it's rude or mean-spirited to bring up the thought experiment in the first place, but that seems very context-dependent, and I wouldn't want to use it as a cop-out to avoid answering the question. Although it might be factually wrong if someone got statistics wrong and was like "I'd rather be around a random polar bear than a random Muslim because polar bears kill fewer people," not accounting for the amount of polar bear encounters vs. Muslim encounters. Kind of like how car collisions with deer kill more people a year than sharks, but I'd rather be around a deer than a shark.

Is that the same as rage baiting?

Preference stems from acquired knowledge that results in a discriminatory mindset...Such data is usually formatively acquired.

Savant wrote:

After considering this, I really can't come up why a reason that racial/gender/anything profiling for the sake of personal safety would be morally wrong in and of itself if it doesn't involve harming the other person.

I think it comes down to what kind of actions the profiling results in. If it results in unequal treatment, it is morally wrong, if it doesn't result in unequal treatment, then what's the point?

If by racial profiling I decide a black man is more dangerous than a white man, then there must be some action I would take if a man is black that I wouldn't take if he was white. "If it doesn't involve harming the other person" is pretty nebulous, I suppose no harm is done if you reach over and lock the car door when you see a black man walking down the sidewalk and don't when it's a white man, but in general, prejudicial treatment of another is harmful.

If you are afraid of someone because they are black, I assume you will react differently to a situation involving a black man that could cause harm. Fear causes some people to act violently, socially stigmatize, exclude, and in general, relate in an unfair way.

In general, prejudice is morally wrong because it results in unequal treatment.

if it doesn't result in unequal treatment, then what's the point?

In this case, to answer a hypothetical about encountering people in a forest. I could say "that's absurd and would never happen," but that seems to me a bit of a cop-out. To a large extent, debates kind of rely on people being willing to answer unrealistic hypotheticals.

In this case, the treatment is what person you are teleporting to the woods I guess? So if anything, choosing to encounter like a white person for example is actually punishing that white person by teleporting them into the woods. Or maybe it's just what person you stumble upon.

I'd want to specifically meet a black woman, they're on average more fun and would pose less of a physical threat than a man of any race. It's kind of mean to the black woman though because they also, on average, don't particularly like to be in the woods. If I can change other characteristics, I would want them to be morbidly obese. This way if we need to resort to cannibalism I could run away from them and kill and eat them once they were in a weakened state, and there would be much more of them to eat. Just rendering all that lard would provide invaluable survival supplies.

what the left does the right condemns.