Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#277 Mar 04 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? You said that minorities should help out members of their own minority group. when I called you on it, instead of saying "yeah. I meant members of a community should help out their community regardless of racial/ethnic criteria",


Once again, your failure to read isn't my problem. I stated it multiple times and even requoted them for you.


What is the "it" you think you stated multiple times? Because what I saw you do multiple times and which you blithely re-quoted was your own attempts to justify your assumed correlation between community and race.

How about I quote what you first said which started this (again):

Quote:
Because once again, you're confused. If black people don't support black business, then no one else will. That doesn't mean go out and hang white people from trees and spray them with water hoses. You're just supporting my claim earlier. You are just paranoid when something doesn't favor your way.

In order to be independent and successful, ethnic minorities have to support each other. That's not racism, that's business and economics. That's how you build a community. The alternate would be to rely on others, that creates the "hand out" issue that we discussed earlier.


I don't agree with this. Period. I think that by adopting such an insular approach and then basing it on race, you are actually harming that racial group in the long run. And the community you are building isn't going to be so great. Oh. And that community will be more dependent on hand outs than those which don't do this.

And guess what? There are decades of social statistics which bear out what I"m saying.

Edited, Mar 4th 2011 5:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#278 Mar 04 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#279 Mar 04 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?


****. I'm having a hard time reading more than parts of it. Alma keeps reposting irrelevant paragraphs as though they are some kind of posting goldmine or something. It's hard as **** just to keep the debate somewhat on track. It's like trying to have a conversation with an extreme ADD kid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#280 Mar 04 2011 at 10:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji: You're so far off the mark, I really just don't care. I have no reason to think you aren't a lost cause when you can't even be on the receiving end of an argument without completely distorting it's meaning, nevermind the fact that I've never seen you yield to even the most irrefutable evidence against you.

It'd be flattery to assume that you're too dumb to understand this, when it's obvious that you just don't want to, which to me speaks more to a matter of character.

Technogeek wrote:
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?


I do. Granted I've skimmed a lot of the last couple of pages, but if nothing else it amuses me to see Alma on the right side of something, for the novelty of it. Kind of anti-villainish.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#281 Mar 05 2011 at 2:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#282 Mar 05 2011 at 6:12 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?


Besides the fact I never implied anyone to do that, the difference is as a customer, I can freely do business with anyone I so choose. That's no different than a white guy who primarily only dated white girls. You gave your business to white women only. I think you're cheating yourself, but that's not the same as only hiring a particular race. As an employer, you no longer have that same level of freedom to discriminate. That's the difference.

Gbaji wrote:
What is the "it" you think you stated multiple times? Because what I saw you do multiple times and which you blithely re-quoted was your own attempts to justify your assumed correlation between community and race.

How about I quote what you first said which started this (again):


I see that you finally get it and you're in denial. When black people talk about progression in the U.S., they are usually not talking about the middle class and higher in integrated neighborhoods. They are focusing at the worst case scenarios, the "hoods", primarily black with violence, no education, drugs, etc. My "assumed correlation" had a disclaimer that it wasn't true 100% of the time, but true enough of the times to talk in generality for the sake of this argument. So, you have no excuse other than your own failure to read or refusal to accept.

Quote:
I don't agree with this. Period. I think that by adopting such an insular approach and then basing it on race, you are actually harming that racial group in the long run. And the community you are building isn't going to be so great. Oh. And that community will be more dependent on hand outs than those which don't do this.


So, what you're saying is that you disagree with China Towns, little Tokyos and Asian Supermarkets and those labels equally offend you? You, know, because that's kind of what they do. If it weren't for Asian people, there wouldn't nearly be as many Asian restaurants in the U.S., yet you have this belief that there somehow would be. Interesting case of denial.

Gbaji wrote:
And guess what? There are decades of social statistics which bear out what I"m saying.


That's interesting, because I literally have centuries of social statistics which supports what I'm saying. Name me a country that doesn't want to supply their own needs, but want most of it to come from other countries as opposed to having all of the supplies and having other countries do business with them? Yea... So, if you're in certain countries like Japan, China, Korea,etc. where the majority of the inhabitants are of one race/nationality, isn't that parallel to a community? So, what's the difference?

Once again, you're so stuck on labels that you're confusing yourself. Generating your own money does not in any way make you more dependent on others, that's just silly.

Quote:
****. I'm having a hard time reading more than parts of it. Alma keeps reposting irrelevant paragraphs as though they are some kind of posting goldmine or something. It's hard as **** just to keep the debate somewhat on track. It's like trying to have a conversation with an extreme ADD kid.


You're so full of trash.

You say that if the black community becomes the majority in power under some process that you don't approve, i.e. focusing on enhancing the black communities, then they will not be able to give up the "legal benefits" that they had to assist them to get where they are. As a result, this would significantly hinder the white population.

I simply asked you to state what those "legal benefits" are, since they are the source of your issue. Then you have the audacity to say it's irrelevant? Then that means your argument is irrelevant, because that's what it's based on, having "legal benefits", when not necessary.

Also, you continually through out this entire thread say it's wrong for black people to want to do business with black people. I counter you to say that this happens world wide throughout time, just in our society it is a sensitive issue. As an example, I asked you if you feel the same way about other ethnicities having "Chinese Restaurants", "Mexican Restaurants", "Italian Restaurants", etc. You reply as if it is irrelevant, so does that mean you have a merit list of ethnicities? Chinese people don't count? If not, then why does one upset you and the other doesn't? I haven't heard a single person complaining about having Japanese Steak and Sushi bars...



Edited, Mar 5th 2011 2:13pm by Almalieque
#283 Mar 05 2011 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?
If someone specifically states "only" then I myself, don't see a difference.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#284 Mar 05 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?
If someone specifically states "only" then I myself, don't see a difference.


I see a big difference as personal preferences vs business. I can prefer "only" brunettes over blonds in social settings, but as an employer I can't "only" hire/promote brunettes. One is personal and the other is business.

Likewise, I can prefer a black male barber over any other combination as a personal preference, but I shouldn't only hire black male barbers in a business environment.

At least it's a difference to me..
#285 Mar 05 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#286 Mar 05 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.



I can see where you're going, but there are still slight differences. For example, if the only reason is because it's black owned, then I personally think there is a problem with that. On the other hand, if it's because it's a family member, friend or someone who I support for a good cause,i.e. putting money back into the community, then I don't see an issue with that.

Edit:

Going back to my presidential election example. I thought it was wrong for people to vote on candidates based on their *** and skin color, but that's not the same as passing a regulation that says women and black people can't run for president. The people can choose to support who they want for dumb or silly reasons, but that's not the same as implementing a rule such as, no "x" allowed.

Edited, Mar 5th 2011 6:13pm by Almalieque
#287 Mar 05 2011 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?


I read a couple of posts from Alma once. I don't think I'll ever do it again.
#288 Mar 05 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.



I can see where you're going, but there are still slight differences. For example, if the only reason is because it's black owned, then I personally think there is a problem with that. On the other hand, if it's because it's a family member, friend or someone who I support for a good cause,i.e. putting money back into the community, then I don't see an issue with that.

Edit:

Going back to my presidential election example. I thought it was wrong for people to vote on candidates based on their *** and skin color, but that's not the same as passing a regulation that says women and black people can't run for president. The people can choose to support who they want for dumb or silly reasons, but that's not the same as implementing a rule such as, no "x" allowed.

Edited, Mar 5th 2011 6:13pm by Almalieque


The bolded section there, that's what I was talking about. That's what I think would be a harmful mindset, and counter-productive to the "color-blind" society ideal.
#289 Mar 05 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.



I can see where you're going, but there are still slight differences. For example, if the only reason is because it's black owned, then I personally think there is a problem with that. On the other hand, if it's because it's a family member, friend or someone who I support for a good cause,i.e. putting money back into the community, then I don't see an issue with that.

Edit:

Going back to my presidential election example. I thought it was wrong for people to vote on candidates based on their *** and skin color, but that's not the same as passing a regulation that says women and black people can't run for president. The people can choose to support who they want for dumb or silly reasons, but that's not the same as implementing a rule such as, no "x" allowed.

Edited, Mar 5th 2011 6:13pm by Almalieque


The bolded section there, that's what I was talking about. That's what I think would be a harmful mindset, and counter-productive to the "color-blind" society ideal.


Well, you first have to admit to yourself that there will never be a "color-blind" society, the best we can hope for is a tolerant society that understands our differences.

Second, as you equally despise that attitude in bold as I do, we have to accept the fact that there are misguided people in society and make an effort to enlighten them.
#290 Mar 05 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well, you first have to admit to yourself that there will never be a "color-blind" society, the best we can hope for is a tolerant society that understands our differences.


Aye, that's why I said "ideal." It's something to strive for. I should say that by "color-blind", I don't mean a society where differences in one's background are wholly ignored. I think that we should be aware of our differences...to know and appreciate them. That's the way to achieve understanding. By "color-blind" society, I just mean one where we don't have irrational preferences for our own races.

Quote:
Second, as you equally despise that attitude in bold as I do, we have to accept the fact that there are misguided people in society and make an effort to enlighten them.


Sure. I wholly accept that. In fact, I provided an example of that behavior in myself (see: white athletes), so believe me, it's not that I don't understand it. I wouldn't judge anyone harshly for it. I was just discussing hypotheticals and ideals.

Edited, Mar 5th 2011 4:00pm by Eske
#291 Mar 05 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Eske wrote:
Aye, that's why I said "ideal." It's something to strive for. I should say that by "color-blind", I don't mean a society where differences in one's background are wholly ignored. I think that we should be aware of our differences...to know and appreciate them. That's the way to achieve understanding. By "color-blind" society, I just mean one where we don't have irrational preferences for our own races.


Ok, I can buy that.

Eske wrote:
Sure. I wholly accept that. In fact, I provided an example of that behavior in myself (see: white athletes), so believe me, it's not that I don't understand it. I wouldn't judge anyone harshly for it. I was just discussing hypotheticals and ideals.


I don't consider your behavior of wanting to see white athletes the same, IMO. I'm personally referring to extreme behaviors. I know people that if it isn't about a certain race, then they don't want to hear about it and isn't worth anything.

#292 Mar 05 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Kachi wrote:
Interesting anecdote. I think this actually drives at the issue of fairness. What determines fairness, anyway? We tend to look at it naively from incident to incident, ignoring all that precedes it. If one person is more qualified, then it's only fair that they are more successful. But what if the person who is more qualified had an unfair advantage in becoming more qualified? Is it still unfair? This is an extremely over-simplified question to demonstrate the ethical dilemma. In reality, without an initial equality, it is impossible to establish true fairness. That is why we have systems in place that intend to correct some of the inherent unfairness, if for no other reason than that people who get the shaft in life tend to raise a ruckus about it.


Sure. But as my sports analogy illustrates, there's a difference between addressing the initial starting point differential and skewing the rules of the game in order to benefit an historically poorer performing team. In Football, for example, we do things like limit the total number of players on a team, and the total salary that can be collectively paid to those players, and profit share *some* of the revenue from the league. This prevents an historically wealthy team from hiring all the best players, thus winning more games, making more money, and thus perpetually staying ahead of other teams. What we don't do is make the gameplay easier for the poorer teams. We don't let them score on a shorter field, or let them get first downs more easily, or give them 5 downs per possession instead of 4.

That's the difference between things like education funding for poor neighborhoods versus hiring quotas once they reach employment age. One is a reasonable approach to try to bridge that gap. The other is a skewing of the rules after the fact in order to equalize results. We also have to remember that sports are ultimately just entertainment. There's an inherent value to trying to keep the teams as "equal" as possible, in order to increase the total interest in the sport itself. That's why we have different leagues that play at different levels. But in the real world, that same approach is counter-productive. An employee's compensation is going to be related to the value that employee brings to the employers business. It's self creating since his salary is paid out of the collective profits of all of the employees labors. Thus, the more value his labor produces, the more profits the business makes, and the more likely the employer will pay him more.

Imposing hiring and pay "equalization" doesn't make sense in that context. Unlike sports, where equalizing of teams will increase interest in the games and thus increase total revenue, in business, equalizing of pay will decrease total productive output, and decrease total profits, and thus decrease the total amount of pay available to the pool of employees. Consumers don't generally care about the racial makeup of the people who built the product they're buying. They care about the cost of the product compared to the usefulness/quality of that product. And in the cases (as Alma suggests) where consumers are told to buy based on that racial criteria, what they're ultimately doing is increasing the total cost of the products they buy and thus making themselves poorer as well. There's no upside to this IMO.


Quote:
It's this approach that justifies privilege to oppressed groups. They start at a disadvantage, which they typically work together to try to correct collectively. You can disagree with it, but I doubt they'll care, and I don't see why they should. It would be nice if life were simple enough that we could gauge fairness on a case by case basis, but you can't call it a fair race just because no one was jumping in your way when you started off a mile behind.


We also have to ask how much of a disadvantage we're talking about. How far "behind" is the typical black person, for example? How do we even measure that? Whenever that example is used, it's always presented in extreme terms, as though a white person starts the race a mile ahead of a black person. But in the grand scheme of a persons life, the gap isn't really that large. Starting out in a poorer neighborhood is a disadvantage, but one that can absolutely be overcome. And once it's even slightly overcome, the difference is largely and immediately eliminated. A black kid from the ghetto gets a part time job which gives him enough money to move into an apartment in a working class (but non-ghetto) neighborhood has the exact same chances from that point on as a white kid starting out in that working class neighborhood, working at the same part time job and living in the same apartment complex.


The problem, and what makes the end statistics so skewed is that many kids never leave that ghetto, and never make that first step. Those who do perform more or less equally with others. It's the ones who don't who make the statistics end out so badly. Yet, instead of encouraging kids to take that first step and move out of the ghetto and move on to better things for themselves and their future children, what we do is focus on applying affirmative action systems to jobs which aren't the problem (more or less once they're even in a position to apply for a job at which such things are applied, they don't really need them anymore), and we convince them that supporting the ghetto is the solution. We encourage them to stay there and "help out". Worse, those who do leave are sometimes called race-traitors for not sticking around and staying as part of the "community".


We really do ***** over black people in this country. But not in the ways and not for the reasons most people assume. And IMO the very ideas that Alma tosses out there are part of the problem, not the solution. Those ideas perpetuate the differences between racial groups, and make it harder for any of them to ever catch up. The biggest cause of racism is not the racial labeling and different treatment applied to minorities by others, but the labels and different treatment they apply to themselves. The solution is to stop doing that. Stop labeling yourself as a minority group. Stop thinking you need to focus on race as a means of furthering yourself. Stop thinking as a member of a group and focus on improving your own life.


You're all arguing that we should treat the symptoms of racial inequality out of an assumption that we can't end it. But I believe that the very things we do to treat those symptoms are what is perpetuating the cause of that inequality. You can't ever eliminate it as long as you keep doing that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Mar 05 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I do feel a little bad that you wrote all that and I'm not even gonna read it, but I did kind of warn you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#294 Mar 05 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The problem, and what makes the end statistics so skewed is that many kids never leave that ghetto, and never make that first step. Those who do perform more or less equally with others. It's the ones who don't who make the statistics end out so badly. Yet, instead of encouraging kids to take that first step and move out of the ghetto and move on to better things for themselves and their future children, what we do is focus on applying affirmative action systems to jobs which aren't the problem (more or less once they're even in a position to apply for a job at which such things are applied, they don't really need them anymore), and we convince them that supporting the ghetto is the solution. We encourage them to stay there and "help out". Worse, those who do leave are sometimes called race-traitors for not sticking around and staying as part of the "community".


Who does this? You're obviously piecing crap together that you saw in the media. I've never ever heard any black person who dreamed of "staying in the ghetto". Do you even listen to rap music? You look really, really silly right now. At the same time, I feel more comfortable that it is even more evident that you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing what people want to do, with what political powers are trying to do.

Honestly, you should really educate yourself more on these issues before talking on them. You lose all credibility when you make stuff up like you did on "black churches".

Gbaji wrote:
And IMO the very ideas that Alma tosses out there are part of the problem, not the solution.


I've asked you several times to state what my idea is since it's very obvious that you don't know what it is.

You said that you don't disagree with what I said, "after I changed it" (even though it was consistent), so how is it now part of the problem? What exactly do you disagree with? You disagree with Japan wanting to be self-sufficient. You think the goal of Japan being a big exporter will only worsen the Japanese economy?

Gbaji wrote:
The biggest cause of racism is not the racial labeling and different treatment applied to minorities by others, but the labels and different treatment they apply to themselves. The solution is to stop doing that. Stop labeling yourself as a minority group. Stop thinking you need to focus on race as a means of furthering yourself. Stop thinking as a member of a group and focus on improving your own life.


Once again.. Why don't you feel the same way about China Towns, Little Tokyo's, Asian supermarkets, little Italy's, etc.

You keep saying my question is irrelevant, but then you continuously bring up labels. So, obviously it means something to you.

Does it bother you that a Chinese person makes a restaurant labeled "Chinese Restaurant" saying that they serve "Chinese Food"?

You just said that the biggest problem is people labeling themselves, so I presented you a scenario of an ethnic group labeling themselves. You can't say it's irrelevant.



Edited, Mar 6th 2011 3:31am by Almalieque
#295 Mar 05 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Kachi wrote:
I do feel a little bad that you wrote all that and I'm not even gonna read it, but I did kind of warn you.


Don't feel bad at all. I ask him hard hitting questions and he blatantly brushes them off as "irrelevant" even though they are directly questioning his claims.
#296 Mar 06 2011 at 12:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:55pm by ShadorVIII
#297 Mar 06 2011 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
Kachi wrote:

Quote:
But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.


Of course you don't get it. YOU'RE WHITE. When you're white and you live in a systemically white culture, whiteness is something you take for granted. Black people have their own culture, but they live in that same systemically white culture, unless they develop a cultural pocket. What you don't understand is that for many black people, this is similar to being a foreigner in a foreign country. There are customs, behaviors, products, etc... that they aren't familiar with even in their own country, because they don't come from a white culture. Other people look down on them if they are boisterous, which is just a part of the culture-- in other countries, we are looked down on for the same thing.


Look at your sentence and really think about it. You are so very close to understanding a real, equitable, fair solution to the the whole problem of racial tension that it makes me weep. Here's a hint. Research the FULL EXTENT of what Abraham Lincoln proposed when he wrote up the Emancipation Proclimation (his speeches about this can be readily found) in conjunction with the the history of the African nation of Liberia.


No.

Way to not make any actual points, though. If you're going to suggest that an old white man has the solution to our racial ails, at least argue for the position.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#298 Mar 06 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Kachi wrote:
If I have "3" and you have "6" after meeting the exact same criterion, then things are not fair. If someone then gives me "3" and gives you "0", that is not an equitable thing for them to do, but then we are fair.

K?

Gah, you're exhausting. Forget it.


I must be exhausting, too, 'cause I don't understand that one bit.


Don't worry about it, he's either explaining himself poorly or talking nonsense. Presumably, "we are fair" is not meant to convey that the two people are themselves fair individuals. This misundestanding is entirely his fault. Nor is it likely he intends to draw a distinction between equity and fairness; the language does not bear out such an interpretation, and it is in any case nonsense.

Therefore we must assume "we are fair" is supposed to mean that, at the point after the act, the distribution of resources between the two parties is fair - they put in the same effort and ended up with the same value, '6'. Due to unfair circumstances, an unfair act resulted in a fair outcome; two wrongs made a right. That is the essential thrust of his argument.

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 3:23am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#299 Mar 06 2011 at 11:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Yes, but this was clarified simply via PM some time ago. I also admitted that I wasn't especially clear, because I generally try not to invest much (at least not more than amuses me) in explaining things to gbaji. I would wager gbaji remains alone in his failure to comprehend it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#300 Mar 07 2011 at 2:11 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Kavekk wrote:
two wongs made a white.


FTFY.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#301 Mar 07 2011 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
So according to gbaji white peeps should only shop at stores owned by blacks.

Here's the rest:

Black peeps shop at stores owned by Orientals, and Orientals should only shop at stores owned by Latinos and Latinos should only shop at stores owned by Indians.

K, is everone clear where they'll be buying their peanut butter?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (63)