Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#327 Mar 08 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

Will you please tell us what these "legal benefits" are?

Gbaji wrote:
Alma? How the **** did you manage to write three posts and fail to address what I said in even a single one of them.


I'm wondering the same exact thing for you. It's like you aren't even reading my posts.

Quote:
It's not about what you buy, or where. It's about why you buy it. I thought I was incredibly clear about this.


This has been clear. The problem is that you're bringing this up as a counter to something that isn't being discussed. Read below.

Gbaji wrote:
If you buy dinner at a Mexican food restaurant because you want to eat Mexican food, there's nothing wrong with that. If you buy dinner at that restaurant because it's owned by a Mexican and you want to help out Mexicans financially, then there is something wrong with that.

Can you grasp this? You keep ignoring the case I'm saying is wrong, and want to argue endlessly about the ones I have no problem with. Can you address the case I'm actually talking about?


My original argument was addressed by YOUR notion that part of the problem was labels. This wasn't MY argument, but YOUR argument. I simply countered YOUR argument by questioning why you accept one and not the other. You can't then turn around and say that it had nothing to do with my original statement, because if it didn't, then why do you keep bringing up labels as being part of the problem?

Once again, it was in reference to your argument in labels. At the same time, you haven't addressed "Little Tokyo's" or "China Towns".. Do they offend you? You can't possibly deny the fact these areas are "for the Asians". After doing a little wiki-research, if it weren't for the Japanese involvements in WW2, there would have been much more official J-Towns in the U.S.

Well, once you realize that I was replying to YOUR argument that labels is part of the problem, which were your comments in response to my problem and NOT me making a comparison to my argument, then we can move on.

Do you understand now? So how are labels part of the problem, if you don't have any problem with any other minority group labeling themselves?

This is NOT about wanting to buy Mexican food because you want Mexican food or buying something from a guy because he is simply Mexican, but the fact that he LABELED it Mexican, which you argued to say was part of the problem. Please justify your claim by explaining how and why.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes or no: It is wrong for a black person to choose to do business at a black owned business solely to help out a black person financially. When answering, pretend that there are no other relevant conditions. The owner is not a relative, or a friend, and there's no community aspect (let's pretend you're in another part of town).

Yes or no? I say that this is wrong. Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that it's ok for the black person to "help a brother out", so to speak?


Are you completely ignoring my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election? Is your goal to keep trying to project your fictional arguments unto me so you can be right?

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours... as I already answered your question in my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election and numerous other times.






Edited, Mar 9th 2011 2:13am by Almalieque
#328 Mar 08 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Ok. I'm going to try to reason with you here. I have little hope it'll work, but don't say that I didn't make the attempt.

Quote:
My original argument was addressed by YOUR notion that part of the problem was labels.


Technically, my statement about labels was about 3 layers down in a larger argument, but whatever. My point (again!!!) is that there's a difference between labeling something that is actually different in some relevant way (like different food, clothing, music, etc), and labeling purely to make a distinction between people based on skin color.

Quote:
This wasn't MY argument, but YOUR argument. I simply countered YOUR argument by questioning why you accept one and not the other. You can't then turn around and say that it had nothing to do with my original statement, because if it didn't, then why do you keep bringing up labels as being part of the problem?


I have not mentioned labels in at least 3 pages. You're the one who keeps bringing them up. I've been ignoring that, remember? I literally mentioned self-labeling as harmful one time, and you've obsessed over it ever since.

But to answer your question, it's because there is a difference between labeling people for the sake of labeling them socially, and labeling the things they do, or the foods they eat, or the history they share. I was not talking about labels in general. I was talking about why you apply them. It matters. if the reason I label someone "black" is so that I can get all black people to think that they are separate from the rest of the larger society (and no other reason), then it is harmful to do so. And if the sole reason someone labels themselves is to follow that idea and self-segregate themselves from the rest of the larger society, then they are only hurting themselves.

You failed to get the point, and obsessed on the word "label". Try to understand what I'm talking about.

Quote:
Once again, it was in reference to your argument in labels. At the same time, you haven't addressed "Little Tokyo's" or "China Towns".. Do they offend you? You can't possibly deny the fact these areas are "for the Asians". After doing a little wiki-research, if it weren't for the Japanese involvements in WW2, there would have been much more official J-Towns in the U.S.


Yes. And guess what? People travel to the China-towns and Korea-towns and Little Italys in the US in order to experience cultural differences. They eat in the restaurants, and buy goods at the shops, because of those differences. If no one who wasn't Chinese ever traveled to Chinatown to buy something or eat dinner, then I would argue those things were also harmful. It would cease to be a reflection of different culture which those around could experience and enjoy, and would simply become a self-segregated community.

This is not even remotely similar to the "black community" which we were discussing originally. What's funny is that your original statement shows that you understand this. You said that black people should support black businesses because no one else will. Take that logic a step further and ask "why". I just took your statement down a few logical steps and presented the problem with it back to you. Somehow you failed to understand what I was doing though.


People don't travel to "black-town". They are not the same.

Quote:
Well, once you realize that I was replying to YOUR argument that labels is part of the problem, which were your comments in response to my problem and NOT me making a comparison to my argument, then we can move on.


Yes. Because in the case of black people in the US, the label is completely artificial. It was created specifically to segregate themselves from the larger population at a time when they would have been best served by integrating. And the result has been devastatingly harmful to them as a group.

Quote:
This is NOT about wanting to buy Mexican food because you want Mexican food or buying something from a guy because he is simply Mexican, but the fact that he LABELED it Mexican, which you argued to say was part of the problem. Please justify your claim by explaining how and why.


But the label isn't arbitrary. The food is from the region of the world broadly referred to as "Mexico" (yes, it's from a larger area, whatever). Let me put it another way: If the traditional food in Mexico and South American was hot dogs and hamburgers, with steak and potatoes or maybe a casserole for dinner, there would be no label called "Mexican food". Get it? The label applies to an actual difference that matters to us. We eat at Mexican restaurants because they serve a specific set of dishes which are not standard fair to us. Same reason why I might go to an Italian or Chinese restaurant for dinner, or have a drink at a Irish pub.

We didn't just arbitrarily decide that hot dogs and hamburgers when served by someone from South of the US/Mexico border was "Mexican food". And if the only reason for ordering your hot dogs at a given place was because the person serving it was Mexican and you wanted to "help out" Mexicans, I would also argue you were racially discriminating.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Yes or no: It is wrong for a black person to choose to do business at a black owned business solely to help out a black person financially. When answering, pretend that there are no other relevant conditions. The owner is not a relative, or a friend, and there's no community aspect (let's pretend you're in another part of town).

Yes or no? I say that this is wrong. Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that it's ok for the black person to "help a brother out", so to speak?


Answer my questions and I'll answer yours...



Ok. Answer. Not one peep about the stuff above. I want just an answer to those questions.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 6:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#329 Mar 08 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
I've never seen two people who essentially agree about an issue argue against each other with the vehemence of people on opposite sides of the debate.


This is one **** of a case study.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 9:08pm by Eske
#330 Mar 08 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I've never seen two people who essentially agree about an issue argue against each other with the vehemence of people on opposite sides of the debate.


From my point of view, the problem is that I'm pretty sure that we disagree about one critical point, but Alma seems **** bent on conflating that one thing with a bunch of other things that we don't disagree on.

It's pretty darn frustrating.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#331 Mar 08 2011 at 10:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
"Fair" and "Equitable" do not mean that the outcomes are equal. I already explained this to you. What you want isn't a fair or equitable system, but rather a system which equalizes the outcomes. I understand that perfectly. You seem to be confused about it because you want to use the wrong words to describe what you're doing (and there's a whole long explanation as to why you do that, but I'll spare you this time).


This is hilarious, because it shows that you actually DON'T understand what I was saying. I admit I was just trolling you a bit there, but in attempting to state my point in your own words, as is often a measure of comprehension, you demonstrated that you actually don't comprehend.


Really? You're going to play this game now too?

Ok. How about instead of insisting that I don't understand what you're saying, you actually write it in a single clear paragraph? Because I'm pretty sure that whatever you write down will end out being exactly what I assumed you meant from the beginning.


What you are mistaking for me "not comprehending" your position is actually me applying your position to situations which you either avoid thinking about, or have never considered before. That's me understanding your position better than you btw. You just haven't thought the whole thing through, so when I present counters that you didn't consider you assume I don't understand you. That's simply not the case though.

Edited, Mar 8th 2011 1:59pm by gbaji


That's a pretty heavy dose of denial there, fella. Kavekk already explained it well enough though, so if you didn't understand it the first two times, maybe you're just dumb. As for me, I have papers that affirm my excellent reading comprehension :p
____________________________
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.
#332 Mar 09 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Technically, my statement about labels was about 3 layers down in a larger argument, but whatever. My point (again!!!) is that there's a difference between labeling something that is actually different in some relevant way (like different food, clothing, music, etc), and labeling purely to make a distinction between people based on skin color.



Gbaji wrote:
Wow. Just wow. How about not insisting on creating something different, then labeling it "black X", and then complaining when only a narrow segment of society are interested in those things?

If we want to get out of this cycle, we should stop deliberately inserting race into things which shouldn't naturally care about them. Clothes aren't "black". Music isn't "black". Shops aren't "black". They only become labeled as such when people decide to create some kind of difference and then associate a race to that difference. It's completely artificial. How about we not do that? Why not just have music, and clothes, and barber shops, and not label them?

Wouldn't that be different?


So which one is it? Is it ok to label movies, clothes, music as "black" or no?

Gbaji wrote:

I have not mentioned labels in at least 3 pages. You're the one who keeps bringing them up. I've been ignoring that, remember? I literally mentioned self-labeling as harmful one time, and you've obsessed over it ever since.


Gbaji=for the SECOND time on page 3 wrote:
This is part of your problem then. Stop doing that. Stop labeling people based on racial stereotypes you assume must apply. You then might not be so surprised at a white rapper, or a black country singer, or whatever else doesn't fit your pre-assumed stereotypes. Seriously. The problem is with you and the need to apply racial labels to everything. Some of us don't do that.


Gbaji wrote:
Why not? And isn't that the problem? If the issue is racial perception, then isn't the solution to get rid of the perception? What if black people didn't think of themselves as "black"? What if they just thought of themselves as "people"? Can you even comprehend what a major advance that would be in terms of social evolution? Can you also see how this is the route to ending racism?


Gbaji wrote:
The way to beat racism in a society is to stop labeling people by race.


Gbaji wrote:
The biggest thing holding black america back is that it insists on being treated as "black america" instead of just Americans.


Gbaji wrote:
Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white"


Gbaji on page 6 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.


I'm not going to read all of your posts, but you've made that argument more than *one* time. That's why I keep asking you to justify your claim.

Quote:
It matters. if the reason I label someone "black" is so that I can get all black people to think that they are separate from the rest of the larger society (and no other reason), then it is harmful to do so. And if the sole reason someone labels themselves is to follow that idea and self-segregate themselves from the rest of the larger society, then they are only hurting themselves.

You failed to get the point, and obsessed on the word "label". Try to understand what I'm talking about.


Nope, I didn't fail to get your point at all. No one was arguing to label black people for the sole purpose of being different. Black people are labeled as such because they ARE different. White people do not share the same interests and/or equally incorporate black culture, therefore segregation occurs. This isn't a negative thing, it's natural. While I was in Korea, I had about 5 channels spoken in English. If the U.S servicemen wanted more American TV, then we had to provide our own American T.V broadcast.

Quote:
Yes. And guess what? People travel to the China-towns and Korea-towns and Little Italys in the US in order to experience cultural differences. They eat in the restaurants, and buy goods at the shops, because of those differences. If no one who wasn't Chinese ever traveled to Chinatown to buy something or eat dinner, then I would argue those things were also harmful. It would cease to be a reflection of different culture which those around could experience and enjoy, and would simply become a self-segregated community.

This is not even remotely similar to the "black community" which we were discussing originally. What's funny is that your original statement shows that you understand this. You said that black people should support black businesses because no one else will. Take that logic a step further and ask "why". I just took your statement down a few logical steps and presented the problem with it back to you. Somehow you failed to understand what I was doing though.


People don't travel to "black-town". They are not the same.


Nice try, but no dice. Asian communities weren't built for tourist attractions, but for Asians. So, the idea of Asians building a community to do business with each other doesn't bother you, yet a black community doing business with each other does... interesting..

People TRAVEL to these Asian communities because it's different, interesting and like being in a different country. Black neighborhoods do not provide that, because they are still American neighborhoods. There is nothing new or interesting.

So, to make sure, you don't have a problem with Asians building a community for themselves to live and do business with each other?

Quote:

Yes. Because in the case of black people in the US, the label is completely artificial. It was created specifically to segregate themselves from the larger population at a time when they would have been best served by integrating. And the result has been devastatingly harmful to them as a group.



False. That was only true for NEGATIVE labels such as racial remarks. Black and White labels were made before the establishment of the U.S. along with every other racial label.

So you believe that there are no differences between black, white, hispanic and asians to support labels?

Quote:
But the label isn't arbitrary. The food is from the region of the world broadly referred to as "Mexico" (yes, it's from a larger area, whatever). Let me put it another way: If the traditional food in Mexico and South American was hot dogs and hamburgers, with steak and potatoes or maybe a casserole for dinner, there would be no label called "Mexican food". Get it? The label applies to an actual difference that matters to us. We eat at Mexican restaurants because they serve a specific set of dishes which are not standard fair to us. Same reason why I might go to an Italian or Chinese restaurant for dinner, or have a drink at a Irish pub.

We didn't just arbitrarily decide that hot dogs and hamburgers when served by someone from South of the US/Mexico border was "Mexican food". And if the only reason for ordering your hot dogs at a given place was because the person serving it was Mexican and you wanted to "help out" Mexicans, I would also argue you were racially discriminating.


Wait, so your argument is that there is no difference between the things we label black or white that they are all the same? Then why don't white people equally include things that people label "black"? Why is it always left up to black people to create and integrate?

Ok. Answer. Not one peep about the stuff above. I want just an answer to those questions.


Are you completely ignoring my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election? Is your goal to keep trying to project your fictional arguments unto me so you can be right?

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours... as I already answered your question in my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election and numerous other times.

Will you please tell us what these "legal benefits" are?



Edited, Mar 9th 2011 3:13pm by Almalieque
#333 Mar 09 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I've never seen two people who essentially agree about an issue argue against each other with the vehemence of people on opposite sides of the debate.


From my point of view, the problem is that I'm pretty sure that we disagree about one critical point, but Alma seems **** bent on conflating that one thing with a bunch of other things that we don't disagree on.

It's pretty darn frustrating.


Eske is right. We agree on that one critical point, which I thought was resolved already. Why you insist on tying these tier II and tier III arguments back to the original question is what is pretty darn frustrating.
#334 Mar 09 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
"Fair" and "Equitable" do not mean that the outcomes are equal. I already explained this to you. What you want isn't a fair or equitable system, but rather a system which equalizes the outcomes. I understand that perfectly. You seem to be confused about it because you want to use the wrong words to describe what you're doing (and there's a whole long explanation as to why you do that, but I'll spare you this time).


This is hilarious, because it shows that you actually DON'T understand what I was saying. I admit I was just trolling you a bit there, but in attempting to state my point in your own words, as is often a measure of comprehension, you demonstrated that you actually don't comprehend.




Quote:
That's a pretty heavy dose of denial there, fella. Kavekk already explained it well enough though, so if you didn't understand it the first two times, maybe you're just dumb. As for me, I have papers that affirm my excellent reading comprehension :p


Really? Are you talking about this response?

Kavekk wrote:
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.


I didn't think that.

Quote:
This misundestanding is entirely his fault.


I didn't misunderstand.

Quote:
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.


Didn't think that either. So we're all in agreement about what you *weren't* saying.

Quote:
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.


The bolded part is what I disagree with. First off, I don't agree that the amount of effort you expend has anything to do with the reward you receive (compensation/pay in this case, right?). Your pay is based on the value you generate by your labor, not how hard you worked. If I work for 12 hours digging a 10 foot trench, and you use a better tool and dig the exact same trench in 1 hour, should I get paid 12 times more than you? Obviously not.

That issue aside, the other major disagreement I have is that there is an assumption that if personA gets 3 and person B gets 6, that they must have both generated that same value (what Kavekk calls "effort"). You covered for this by saying that the criterion are the same, but that's the very assumption that I don't agree with (and I stated this several times). Policies like affirmative action do not measure whether or not the person being benefited (by your argument in order to change their eventual outcome from 3 to 6) is putting in the same effort, generating the same value for others, or is in anyway actually entitled to or needs those benefits. We simply assume that black means lower outcome and apply the benefit.


You assume that those benefits are needed to offset an unfair process which generates an unfair outcome, but you aren't bothering to determine if the outcome is actually fair or not. You're just looking at the outcome, seeing that it's statistically worse for one group compared to another, and applying an offset to make them equal.


This is why my response to you was to say that what you were doing had nothing to do with being "fair" or "equitable". You were, in fact, being deliberately unfair and inequitable in order to make the outcomes even. My point, from the beginning of this thread, and still right now, is that this is a stupidly bad way to do this. If there are measurable inequities in the process by which outcomes are determined, then we should address those inequities. Simply applying an offsetting inequity in order to try to balance out the outcome is a mistake. You aren't actually addressing the problem. At best, you are masking the symptoms, and at worse are introducing another inequity into the system which will cause you more problems down the line.


Like I said. I understood exactly what you were saying. I just completely disagree with it from start to finish. I know what you're trying to do and why. It's just a bad way to approach the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#335 Mar 09 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
I'll be nice again. Eventually, you kinda should reply to my question though, don't you think? I'm not going to endlessly debate the silly side questions you want to discuss while ignoring the one and only point I actually care about.

Almalieque wrote:
No one was arguing to label black people for the sole purpose of being different. Black people are labeled as such because they ARE different.


The only actual difference is skin color though. Everything else is racial stereotype. If you think that eating fried chicken and watermelon and listening to rap music is somehow associated with being "black", then you are guilty of stereotyping. And that's *exactly* what I said is problematic and leads to racial discrimination.

I've tried to explain this to you multiple times. I may choose to eat certain foods, or buy certain products, and listen to certain music, and I certainly may have my preferences for those things influenced by the culture and group I grew up with socially. But you cannot make any assumption of a correlation between an ethnicity and any of that and you make a fool out of yourself when you do. Mexican food is Mexican food because it's food that comes to us from a specific region. It's not Mexican food because it was cooked by a Mexican. Get it?



Quote:
Quote:
People don't travel to "black-town". They are not the same.


Nice try, but no dice. Asian communities weren't built for tourist attractions, but for Asians. So, the idea of Asians building a community to do business with each other doesn't bother you, yet a black community doing business with each other does... interesting..


Still missing the point. Do we call those places Chinatown, or Little Italy because there are Chinese or Italian people living there? Or is it because there are shops and restaurants that sell products we might not see in other parts of town which are associated with the geographical regions named in the label? If it were just a bunch of Chinese people living there, but they spoke the same language, and ate the same food, and their stores contained the same products as the ones everywhere else, would we still call it "Chinatown"?

I don't think so.

Quote:
People TRAVEL to these Asian communities because it's different, interesting and like being in a different country. Black neighborhoods do not provide that, because they are still American neighborhoods. There is nothing new or interesting.


So close... yet so far. So then what are you saying when you speak of the "black community" and the need for black people to buy at black owned businesses? Why create a label and why then treat those within differently? You said that they are different. But now you're saying that they aren't. Which is it?

Quote:
So, to make sure, you don't have a problem with Asians building a community for themselves to live and do business with each other?



If I thought you could grasp the point I've been trying to make to you about culture not automatically being tied to race, I'd point it out to you. Again. Can we just skip this now? It's clear that you will never, even if I explain it to you over and over and over for a thousand years, get what I'm saying. You are so stuck in your own racial stereotypes and assumptions that you can't even conceptualize disconnecting those things which you have firmly and permanently connected in your own mind.

Quote:
False. That was only true for NEGATIVE labels such as racial remarks. Black and White labels were made before the establishment of the U.S. along with every other racial label.


You just don't realize that your use of the label is also negative. Hence, the problem you have understanding what I'm saying.


Quote:
Answer my questions and I'll answer yours...


Then do it. I'm not going to eternally answer you questions while you ignore mine. The reason I've been trying to ignore your questions is because they appear to just be garbage questions tossed out by you in order to avoid answering mine.


I answered several of your questions. You could at least answer the one I asked you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#336 Mar 09 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

The bolded part is what I disagree with. First off, I don't agree that the amount of effort you expend has anything to do with the reward you receive (compensation/pay in this case, right?). Your pay is based on the value you generate by your labor, not how hard you worked. If I work for 12 hours digging a 10 foot trench, and you use a better tool and dig the exact same trench in 1 hour, should I get paid 12 times more than you? Obviously not.


Incredibly, you failed to grasp that this was a part of my point all along. Well, not really incredibly, because you're almost always oblivious.
____________________________
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.
#337 Mar 09 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

The bolded part is what I disagree with. First off, I don't agree that the amount of effort you expend has anything to do with the reward you receive (compensation/pay in this case, right?). Your pay is based on the value you generate by your labor, not how hard you worked. If I work for 12 hours digging a 10 foot trench, and you use a better tool and dig the exact same trench in 1 hour, should I get paid 12 times more than you? Obviously not.


Incredibly, you failed to grasp that this was a part of my point all along.


So Kavekk was completely wrong about what your point was? Interesting! So you're either a pathological liar, or we're not both actually speaking the same language.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#338 Mar 09 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Wow, you're really batting a thousand on the logic fails in this thread.
____________________________
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.
#339 Mar 09 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'll be nice again. Eventually, you kinda should reply to my question though, don't you think? I'm not going to endlessly debate the silly side questions you want to discuss while ignoring the one and only point I actually care about.


Here's the difference in our questions.

I have very specific questions that I've been asking since the beginning of our debate. You ignored those questions to answer other questions of your liking.

I have answered your question that you are asking, not only once, twice, but several times. Not only that, I've told you exactly where my answer is located within this thread. You are simply ignoring my response because it isn't worded the way you like. I've pointed you to my response in the 2008 election at least 3 times now. If you refuse to not only accept the original answer that I gave, but me telling you where to find it, then that's a personal problem. You can't say that I'm not answering your question.

Gbaji wrote:
The only actual difference is skin color though. Everything else is racial stereotype. If you think that eating fried chicken and watermelon and listening to rap music is somehow associated with being "black", then you are guilty of stereotyping. And that's *exactly* what I said is problematic and leads to racial discrimination.


False. Do you actually really believe that? So, there is no difference between an Asian, Hispanic, Black or White person? That's absurd. There are physical traits that are different among each of those groups of people. I'm not strictly referring to personality traits. According to your logic, there is no such thing as culture because it's all "stereotyping".
There's just as much a U.S. black culture as there is Chinese culture, Hawaiian culture or Indian Culture.

Gbaji wrote:
I've tried to explain this to you multiple times. I may choose to eat certain foods, or buy certain products, and listen to certain music, and I certainly may have my preferences for those things influenced by the culture and group I grew up with socially. But you cannot make any assumption of a correlation between an ethnicity and any of that and you make a fool out of yourself when you do. Mexican food is Mexican food because it's food that comes to us from a specific region. It's not Mexican food because it was cooked by a Mexican. Get it?


I didn't say it was Mexican because a Mexican cooked it. As you keep ignoring the term "Hispanic", which I also used to describe labels that do not come from a specific region. Your argument was that the label was harmful for food and music. You stated that there is no such thing as "Black music", yet turned around and said it was ok to label things that vary such as music. So which one is it? Is it ok to label music or not? Just because an artist is white, that doesn't mean the music is no longer black music.

You are attempting to strip away black culture and integrate it with the white society, while preserving other ethnic cultures.

Gbaji wrote:
Still missing the point. Do we call those places Chinatown, or Little Italy because there are Chinese or Italian people living there? Or is it because there are shops and restaurants that sell products we might not see in other parts of town which are associated with the geographical regions named in the label? If it were just a bunch of Chinese people living there, but they spoke the same language, and ate the same food, and their stores contained the same products as the ones everywhere else, would we still call it "Chinatown"?

I don't think so.


Yes we would, because we do.
First, your argument was that it was harmful for black people to want to "help each other out" by doing business with each other. Now, you are completely welcoming the thought of Asians deciding to create a neighborhood to live together and do business with each other.

Second, I just came from living in Asia and Asian populations in the U.S. is a major factor for a percentage of Asians in determining where to live. I saw this a lot with Asian spouses. Just recently at work, there was an "Asian wife" club where all of the Asian wives (of different nationalities) were friends and hung out.

This is where you fail to comprehend because it's obvious that you have never been a minority. Just like you never been to a black church, you aren't talking from experience, but stuff that you either saw on T.V or you made up.

Bottom line is, them living together is no coincidence, but you have no problem with that as long as they are not black. This completely supports my claim that all of this hooplah is due to your fear that black people will "take over". You don't fear the Asian population, so the fact that they are building up communities doesn't bother you. If they had a bigger presence in society, you would be saying that it's racist to want to live in a neighborhood based on the skin color of your neighbor.

Gbaji wrote:
So close... yet so far. So then what are you saying when you speak of the "black community" and the need for black people to buy at black owned businesses? Why create a label and why then treat those within differently? You said that they are different. But now you're saying that they aren't. Which is it?


What? Black culture is different, the physical make up of the community is the same. It's like comparing a typical American house in the South to a typical American house in the North. The cultures are completely different, but the actual housing is the same, it's nothing surprising.

Black people need to support black communities for the same reason the Asians support Asian communities. You seem to not have a problem with Asians doing it, so you shouldn't have a problem with black Americans doing it.

Gbaji wrote:
If I thought you could grasp the point I've been trying to make to you about culture not automatically being tied to race, I'd point it out to you. Again. Can we just skip this now? It's clear that you will never, even if I explain it to you over and over and over for a thousand years, get what I'm saying. You are so stuck in your own racial stereotypes and assumptions that you can't even conceptualize disconnecting those things which you have firmly and permanently connected in your own mind.


Soooo. you basically think it's a coincidence that all of those Asians are living next to each other. I mean, that's the only other explanation. It's either that or it was intentional, which under your logic is "racist".

Gbaji wrote:
You just don't realize that your use of the label is also negative. Hence, the problem you have understanding what I'm saying.


This is why I've been asking to you explain how labeling a Chinese person, Chinese negative? All you have done is ignore the question on labels, while constantly making the comment above. Then you have the audacity to say that you haven't been making those comments.

Quote wrote:

Then do it. I'm not going to eternally answer you questions while you ignore mine. The reason I've been trying to ignore your questions is because they appear to just be garbage questions tossed out by you in order to avoid answering mine.


I answered several of your questions. You could at least answer the one I asked you.


And I've responded to your questions in this very post. You are ignoring the questions that I want answered by choosing to only answer questions that you want to. Well, I'm doing the same thing. I will "pick and choose", until you stop "picking and choosing".

1.Are you completely ignoring my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election? Is your goal to keep trying to project your fictional arguments unto me so you can be right?

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours... as I already answered your question in my argument against what happened in the 2008 presidential election and numerous other times.

2.Will you please tell us what these "legal benefits" are?


Your answer is in your response to question one. So, if you decide not to answer it accurately, then you are personally deciding to not get my answer. At that point, it isn't my fault if you some how "forgot" my answer, because I'm telling you exactly where to find it.

#340 Mar 09 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Kachi wrote:
Wow, you're really batting a thousand on the logic fails in this thread.


Or poor communication skills again. When you said "that was a part of my point all along", did you mean that you agree with me that Kavekk's use of effort as the determinant of outcome (as opposed to the value placed on it by others) is wrong? Or that you think that effort should be the determinant?

I ask because your reply suggests the former, which would mean that you disagree with the statement that you earlier insisted was a complete and perfect explanation of your position on this issue.

So either you're just making stuff up as you go along, or there's a serious communication problem (like I just said).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#341 Mar 09 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Alma. Answer this question:

gbaji wrote:
Yes or no: It is wrong for a black person to choose to do business at a black owned business solely to help out a black person financially. When answering, pretend that there are no other relevant conditions. The owner is not a relative, or a friend, and there's no community aspect (let's pretend you're in another part of town).

Yes or no? I say that this is wrong. Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that it's ok for the black person to "help a brother out", so to speak?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#342 Mar 09 2011 at 11:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Or poor communication skills again. When you said "that was a part of my point all along", did you mean that you agree with me that Kavekk's use of effort as the determinant of outcome (as opposed to the value placed on it by others) is wrong? Or that you think that effort should be the determinant?


Christ, man. Leave it to you to make something so simple so hard. Effort plus ability equals product/service quality, to be evaluated. Ok? I've never argued otherwise; you've just completely been missing the point.
____________________________
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.
#343 Mar 10 2011 at 4:49 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Alma. Answer this question:

gbaji wrote:
Yes or no: It is wrong for a black person to choose to do business at a black owned business solely to help out a black person financially. When answering, pretend that there are no other relevant conditions. The owner is not a relative, or a friend, and there's no community aspect (let's pretend you're in another part of town).

Yes or no? I say that this is wrong. Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that it's ok for the black person to "help a brother out", so to speak?


I've already answered your question and I told you where to find it. If you choose to be so lazy that you want to be spoon fed the answer, then that's your personal decision. Don't accuse me of not answering your question.


If you want me to specifically address that question AGAIN, then you you have to answer my questions that you keep ignoring. I asked these questions first and you ignored them only to respond to other statements. Now you're claiming that you "answered" my questions, when you have been ignoring the following.

1. What are these "legal benefits"?

If you want to be a baby about it and end it with a stalemate, then so be it. It's really not that hard, stop ignoring questions and your questions will be answered. You can't pick and choose what you want to answer and expect others to spend time addressing your concerns.
#344 Mar 10 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Or poor communication skills again. When you said "that was a part of my point all along", did you mean that you agree with me that Kavekk's use of effort as the determinant of outcome (as opposed to the value placed on it by others) is wrong? Or that you think that effort should be the determinant?


Christ, man. Leave it to you to make something so simple so hard. Effort plus ability equals product/service quality, to be evaluated.


So you agree with Kavekk that it's based on effort and not me that it's based on the value of your labor to others?

Let me be clear: I don't agree that effort (or effort plus ability) has anything to do with the compensation you should receive. I could be the best ditch digger in the world and spend a lot of effort digging a ditch for you, but if you didn't want a ditch, then my labor's value to you is zero. The only valid measurement of labor is the value it provides to others as assessed by those others. It doesn't matter what a great job you think you did, if what you did isn't worth anything to someone else, then it has no value. At least not in the context of compensation, which is what we're talking about.

Quote:
Ok? I've never argued otherwise; you've just completely been missing the point.



Nope. I still got it perfectly. I disagree with you. Those are different things. As you say, your argument isn't that complex. I've encountered it numerous times from numerous different people. The misunderstanding is on your part. You think that I disagree with you that if the criterion (as you put it) are the same, that the outcomes should be the same. You then conclude that I'm somehow allowing or accepting an "unfair" end result. But what I actually disagree with you is the evaluation of the criterion itself. As a result, you assume that both people's labor should be worth 6, so if one only gets 3, we should add 3 to counter the unfairness of that result. But my argument is that if the end result for one of them was 3 instead of 6, that's the best measurement of the value itself.

Extending the concept, if the whole of society values the contributions of a group within that society less than it values another group (statistically speaking), then that valuation is correct. If that results in an unequal outcome, then the correct approach is to examine *why* the valuation is different and fix it. It's completely moronic to just artificially provide special benefits to that group in order to offset that valuation difference. You aren't fixing the problem. You're just masking it by making the outcomes equal.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#345 Mar 10 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Alma. Answer this question:

gbaji wrote:
Yes or no: It is wrong for a black person to choose to do business at a black owned business solely to help out a black person financially. When answering, pretend that there are no other relevant conditions. The owner is not a relative, or a friend, and there's no community aspect (let's pretend you're in another part of town).

Yes or no? I say that this is wrong. Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that it's ok for the black person to "help a brother out", so to speak?


I've already answered your question and I told you where to find it.


Then it should be trivially easy for you to repeat the answer.

Quote:
If you choose to be so lazy that you want to be spoon fed the answer, then that's your personal decision. Don't accuse me of not answering your question.


You haven't answered that question. You responded to that question with a demand that I answer a whole list of questions from you first. I did this, and then you responded to that response with a list of more questions. I answered those, and you responded with yet more questions that you demanded I answer before you'd answer mine.

You can see why I might start to think you're just avoiding answering my question, right? You're like the child who doesn't want to go to bed, so he starts coming up with random things to do to delay it as long as possible. I need to feed the fish. I need to get some water. Now I need to find something I'll need for school tomorrow. I'm arranging my sock drawer! Your "questions" are wastes of time. You haven't presented any sort of logical connection between them and any sort of position on the issue itself. They're just random things you use to try to keep the argument away from the things you don't want to talk about.

Quote:
If you want to be a baby about it and end it with a stalemate, then so be it. It's really not that hard, stop ignoring questions and your questions will be answered. You can't pick and choose what you want to answer and expect others to spend time addressing your concerns.


You're kidding right? I answer your questions, and you'll just find some other question that I haven't yet answered to your satisfaction and insist that I answer that. Who's being childish?

I'll point out again that you don't seem to have any sort of logic or reason to what you are posting either. My position is clear and well defined. Your's? I honestly have no clue. You're just spewing words to spew words.

Let me define for you my position in one sentence:

It is wrong to judge or treat people differently based on the color of their skin.


That's it. Everything I've posted in this thread (and many others on this general topic) are consistent with this position. Your posts are all over the map. My question is designed to get you to clarify what you think. Yet you refuse to do that. Strange as ****...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#346 Mar 10 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
"Answer my question."

"I answered your question...somewhere. You answer MY question!"

"I'll answer that question when you answer MY question!"

"Oh yeah? Well I'll answer your question when you answer MY question!"


**long pause**








**ferocious making-out ensues**
#347 Mar 10 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

I give up. I will be the bigger man and give into your silliness, ironically, only to make you look sillier.

GBaji wrote:
You haven't answered that question.


Almalieque answering your question on page 6 wrote:
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.


Now, feel dumb, real dumb. That's 3 times in this debate I've quoted you wrong. Funny enough in this case that we agree.

Gbaji wrote:
You responded to that question with a demand that I answer a whole list of questions from you first. I did this, and then you responded to that response with a list of more questions. I answered those, and you responded with yet more questions that you demanded I answer before you'd answer mine.

You can see why I might start to think you're just avoiding answering my question, right? You're like the child who doesn't want to go to bed, so he starts coming up with random things to do to delay it as long as possible. I need to feed the fish. I need to get some water. Now I need to find something I'll need for school tomorrow. I'm arranging my sock drawer! Your "questions" are wastes of time. You haven't presented any sort of logical connection between them and any sort of position on the issue itself. They're just random things you use to try to keep the argument away from the things you don't want to talk about.



False, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO INITIATED IGNORING QUESTIONS, NOT ME!

You ignored so many questions to the point you had an entire list to choose from. From there, you PICKED and CHOSE which questions to answer, while still ignoring the other questions.

Your entire argument is based on "legal benefits" and you refuse to define them, yet you will respond to a statement in a tier III and tier IV discussion.

Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding right? I answer your questions, and you'll just find some other question that I haven't yet answered to your satisfaction and insist that I answer that. Who's being childish?

I'll point out again that you don't seem to have any sort of logic or reason to what you are posting either. My position is clear and well defined. Your's? I honestly have no clue. You're just spewing words to spew words.



Read above.

Gbaji wrote:
It is wrong to judge or treat people differently based on the color of their skin.


In any scenario or in a general sense with the interjection of logic and reason in the exceptions?

Quote:
That's it. Everything I've posted in this thread (and many others on this general topic) are consistent with this position. Your posts are all over the map. My question is designed to get you to clarify what you think. Yet you refuse to do that. Strange as ****...


My position has not been all over the map, it has not only been consistent, but consistent in other threads as I pointed out. You are confusing my initial claim with my responses to your claims. Just because I question your statement, doesn't mean I'm changing the topic, that's the biggest problem I see here on this forum. People say something in response and I question their response and it goes off into another tangent and I get accused for changing the subject. If your comment leads the discussion in that direction, then your argument is to blame.

If the reason why you were late to work was because "I got stabbed in the leg", don't expect people not to question your health. It's not changing the subject, it's adhering to your response.

So, since I directly quoted myself answering your question, are you going to finish answering my questions? How about starting with defining what those "legal benefits" are?
#348 Mar 10 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

I give up. I will be the bigger man and give into your silliness, ironically, only to make you look sillier.

GBaji wrote:
You haven't answered that question.


Almalieque answering your question on page 6 wrote:
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.


Technically, you were answering Ugly's question, not mine, but they were related and that's somewhat close. Not sure why you couldn't have just posted "yes" or "no", given that it was a simple binary question, but whatever. I'm still unclear as to whether or not you consider "helping the community" to be a geographical or racial thing, given that you've spoken broadly of the "black community" in a context which indicates it goes beyond just folks who live near you. That's relevant since it effectively reverses the answer you gave.

But honestly, I'm tired of trying to get you to state firm positions, so it's just not worth it IMO.

Quote:
False, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO INITIATED IGNORING QUESTIONS, NOT ME!


You were the one who started spewing out questions for no apparent reason other than to clog the thread with irrelevant BS. So of course I ignored them.

Quote:
You ignored so many questions to the point you had an entire list to choose from.


Which should have clued you in perhaps that you were asking too many questions and not doing enough actual discussion. I could respond to every line of your post with 10 semi-related questions, but that's not going to enable any sort of discussion. That's why I don't do that. You really need to realize that this style isn't terribly productive. Stick to a topic and post on that topic. Don't just free-associate words and toss out questions for the sake of demanding answers. That gets really annoying to everyone else really fast.

Quote:
From there, you PICKED and CHOSE which questions to answer, while still ignoring the other questions.


Yes. I answered the questions which I felt were relevant to the aspects of this topic which I was interested in discussing. Why is that wrong? Conversations should restrict themselves to the common denominator of interests of the parties involved. Yet you seem to want to eternally expand every single conversation into a dozens different tangential directions and then argue about all of them at the same time.

Stay on target. Decide what your objective is and stick to arguments and statements which support that objective. I really do feel that the problem you have posting is that you don't seem to have a point. You just argue for the sake of arguing. It doesn't seem to matter what or why, which I find really strange.

Quote:
Your entire argument is based on "legal benefits" and you refuse to define them, yet you will respond to a statement in a tier III and tier IV discussion.


It's not really based on that at all. And I don't need to define them, and frankly I'm not sure why you insist on that anyway. My point is "It's wrong to treat or judge people differently based on the color of their skin". Thus, any legal benefits granted to a group because of their skin color is wrong. I don't need or care about what the benefits are. That they exist, may exist, or are even just being proposed all still violate my position on this issue.

It's not about the specifics. It's about the principle. That's why I'm presenting a position on the issue and then using arguments to support that position. You might want to try it sometime.


But for the record, some example benefits could be any of a number of affirmative action hiring laws, racial quotas used for admissions to universities, social programs that target people by skin color instead of socio-economic condition, and any other private or public institution which acts in violation of the principle I outlined above. And no. I'm not going to debate each and every single one of those. If they treat or judge people differently based on their skin color, then I disagree with them. If they don't, then I don't.

That's the criteria I use.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
It is wrong to judge or treat people differently based on the color of their skin.


In any scenario or in a general sense with the interjection of logic and reason in the exceptions?


Except where the skin color is physiologically tied to the action, there are no other exceptions. So a doctor may take someone's race into account when assessing risks of procedures and medications, of course. Or a cosmetic company might target a line of makeup for different skin colors. That's fine.

But to say "I'll help this guy out because he's white", or "I'll buy this guys goods because he's black", is not fine at all. It's not like it's hard to noodle out what I'm talking about.

Quote:
My position has not been all over the map, it has not only been consistent, but consistent in other threads as I pointed out.


Except that after 7 pages in this thread, I still have absolutely no clue what that position is. Think about that. The only consistent thing I've seen from you is that you consistently expand the discussion into increasingly irrelevant tangents.


And btw, it's not about claims made, or arguments made. Those are the things you say to support your position. What's missing from you is an actual position though. You argue, but your arguments are pointless because no one can figure out what you're arguing for.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#349 Mar 10 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
I think this is a case study in Gbaji winning an argument for a change. It's not that he is entirely correct, but that he is entirely more correct than Almalieque.

Quote:
Alma? How the **** did you manage to write three posts and fail to address what I said in even a single one of them.


Made my day.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#350 Mar 10 2011 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

I re-answered your question. So are you going to finally tell me what these "legal benefits" are?

Edit: Never mind.. I see them.. addressing them

Edited, Mar 11th 2011 2:41am by Almalieque
#351 Mar 10 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
TLW wrote:
I think this is a case study in Gbaji winning an argument for a change. It's not that he is entirely correct, but that he is entirely more correct than Almalieque.


Win in what?

All he has done was argue with me that he didn't agree with me, when in the end, I just quoted that we did agree and he just failed to read.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 78 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (78)