Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

That may be true from certain philosophical perspectives; however, if I do, using your example, consider it a felicific problem, then I could defensibly argue that within a framework of hedonistic utilitarianism, happiness is a quantifiable outcome where one could theoretically establish which side is correct. Math may not debate, but humans frequently debate about the application and interpretation of mathematics. Not everyone can solve a given math problem correctly. The difficulty lies not in solving an obvious equation correctly, but determining the correct methodology for solving the problem. Debates are often scientifically concluded in this way.

In a world where ignorance of both the knowable and the unknowable runs rampant, I firmly believe that there are plenty of debates with initial solutions and without.

particularly with your history of deliberate ignorance.

Yup. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. But the music isn't "black". And clothes aren't "black". We might apply labels to those things purely for convenience, but if I prefer rap or soul or whatever other music someone might call "black", the label isn't why I'm buying that album. I'm buying it because the musical style appeals to me and that musical style is different than others which perhaps don't appeal to me as much. In the same way, if I choose to eat at a Chinese restaurant, it's not because it's labeled "Chinese", but because of the cuisine that is served. If it were labeled something else, I'd still presumably like or dislike the food just the same. The label doesn't really matter.



Yup. Absolutely. When the label becomes the determinant by which you assess something, then you start getting yourself into trouble. This is why I've been making a point to differentiate buying goods at a store because it sells things you like, versus buying goods there because it's a "black owned" store.


My side point about labels was intended to illustrate why this is the wrong way to make choices. But predictably, Alma spun the whole thing into talk about whether labels as a whole were good or bad and missed that it wasn't just about the labels themselves. It's why you label something, and what you do with regard to that label.

Edited, Mar 11th 2011 3:21pm by gbaji

.... also we already have a few people playing this role, but feel free to attempt to join them.

There's not much point pointing that out to us, though. It might be true that you've got intelligent people slobbering all over you, but there's no reason for us to believe so. If it's true, but you don't want to prove it, keep it to yourself; however much solace it gives you, you're not going to persuade the unconvinced without proof (or with it, perhaps, but one step at a time).

Structural violence , a term coined
by Johan Galtung and by liberation
theologians during the 1960s, describes
social structures—economic, political,
legal, religious, and cultural—that stop
individuals, groups, and societies from
reaching their full potential [57]. In its
general usage, the word violence often
conveys a physical image; however,
according to Galtung, it is the “avoidable
impairment of fundamental human
needs or…the impairment of human life,
which lowers the actual degree to which
someone is able to meet their needs
below that which would otherwise be
possible” [58]. Structural violence is often
embedded in longstanding “ubiquitous
social structures, normalized by stable
institutions and regular experience” [59].
Because they seem so ordinary in our
ways of understanding the world, they
appear almost invisible. Disparate access
to resources, political power, education,
health care, and legal standing are just
a few examples. The idea of structural
violence is linked very closely to social
injustice and the social machinery of
oppression [16].

@gbaji; You think whatever you like fella, since I know you're going to anyway. I discussed the issue, by happenstance, with a number of people today, as we reviewed an article from a medical journal. Every one of them understood my argument and wondered how we might get idiots like you to understand it as well.

Can you even grasp the concept that just because you believe something is true doesn't actually make it true?

Structural violence , a term coined
by Johan Galtung and by liberation
theologians during the 1960s, describes
social structures—economic, political,
legal, religious, and cultural—that stop
individuals, groups, and societies from
reaching their full potential [57]. In its
general usage, the word violence often
conveys a physical image; however,
according to Galtung, it is the “avoidable
impairment of fundamental human
needs or…the impairment of human life,
which lowers the actual degree to which
someone is able to meet their needs
below that which would otherwise be
possible” [58]. Structural violence is often
embedded in longstanding “ubiquitous
social structures, normalized by stable
institutions and regular experience” [59].
Because they seem so ordinary in our
ways of understanding the world, they
appear almost invisible. Disparate access
to resources, political power, education,
health care, and legal standing are just
a few examples. The idea of structural
violence is linked very closely to social
injustice and the social machinery of
oppression [16].

And once again, you mistake disagreement with misunderstanding.


Can you even grasp the concept that just because you believe something is true doesn't actually make it true?

I can't speak for others, but I never doubt my intelligence. My knowledge though, is easily often in question.

Heh, my assessment tool proves to be even more accurate than I thought, I was just fishing with the previous allusion, but the feedback was useful. Thanks!