Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#352 Mar 10 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
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.


Wow. I am incredulous. You STILL got it wrong. This just isn't even funny anymore. It's sad, is what it is.

Quote:
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.


Granted I haven't read either of their exchanges for the last n pages, but last I checked Alma was arguing ineffectually for the correct side, while gbaji was arguing slightly less ineffectually for the wrong side. If anything it's probably an interesting case study in how both runners can lose a one-on-one race.
____________________________
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.
#353 Mar 10 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Quote:
Granted I haven't read either of their exchanges for the last n pages, but last I checked Alma was arguing ineffectually for the correct side, while gbaji was arguing slightly less ineffectually for the wrong side. If anything it's probably an interesting case study in how both runners can lose a one-on-one race.


The whole point of a debate is that there is not a correct side, only winners and losers.

If you make an excellent case for chopping up orphans and making them into meat pies, you can still win an argument against your non-cannibalistic brethren. Probably by making the Donner argument, but that's irrelevant.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#354 Mar 10 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Granted I haven't read either of their exchanges for the last n pages, but last I checked Alma was arguing ineffectually for the correct side, while gbaji was arguing slightly less ineffectually for the wrong side. If anything it's probably an interesting case study in how both runners can lose a one-on-one race.


The whole point of a debate is that there is not a correct side, only winners and losers.

If you make an excellent case for chopping up orphans and making them into meat pies, you can still win an argument against your non-cannibalistic brethren. Probably by making the Donner argument, but that's irrelevant.


Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins. An internet debate is ************* Though I can see that people take the approach that the point is winning/losing irrespective of what is correct, it just seems like the least productive possible function of a debate to me.
____________________________
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.
#355 Mar 10 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Kachi wrote:
Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins.


Obviously. But if having a correct side was an initial condition, there would be no debate. Capice?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#356 Mar 10 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
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,


Technically, I realized that and told you exactly where to find it. You, just decided to be lazy and childish and ignore my comment as if it were irrelevant.

Not only that, here is me directly addressing you:

Almalieque answering your question again on page 7 wrote:
Once again, you're twisting scenarios to match your argument. In my examples of black business that wouldn't exist without black support, I mentioned magazines, hair products, movies, clothes etc., not black owned stores, unless it consists of the aforementioned products. You're trying to paint this picture of two identical stores, one owned by a white person and the other owned by a black person, and me suggesting to support the black guy simply because he's black. I've argued against that notion numerous times.


This is more evidence of your failure to read.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


Really man?!?! Did we just not go over this? Are you really grasping at straws this bad to not just man up and say that you were wrong? We're going in circles.

I've said the following"


That's why I said that it's important to support the people who are supporting you. It doesn't necessarily have to be of the same race, but in many cases it is. That is why I was generalizing, but Gbaji wasn't grasping that concept. Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race and the products that you desire (movies, clothes, music, food, etc.) are done by the same race. So, if you want to support your community and/or support the things that you desire, then you have to support those people, which is primarily people of your own race. It's NOT necessarily choosing to do business with a random black person because s/he is black. I'm not naive to not know that indeed is the case sometimes, but that wasn't ever my point.

......

No where did I imply that it was some what wrong to want to do business with a white stranger, but it's more beneficial to do business with people that are going to bring their success back into your community and family, which according to #1 above, is more than likely the people of your own race.

......


Let me rephrase my sentence then. You should support your family and friends who live in your neighborhoods and have the same interests as you, who just so happen to be of the same ethnicity 95% of the time.

.......


So, please tell me how is there any confusion on rather I'm talking about community or race, when I literally said that it's not about a specific race in all of the above quotes.

Give up, you were wrong. Just man up and admit to it already.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


Name some examples? You mean like defining the legal benefits that you stated in your original argument? Asking you to justify your claims that self-labeling only hurts the race?

Really? How is asking you to justify your statements "irrelevant"? Doesn't that mean that your statements are "irrelevant"?

Gbaji wrote:
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.


Haven't you realized that those questions come from your poor arguments. You can't make an argument that black Americans are harming themselves by labeling themselves without an explanation on how. You can't say that black Americans wont give up "legal benefits" without defining what these legal benefits are.

You are creating these questions by making poor arguments. Your statements should defend themselves to the point where questions are only about misunderstandings, not facts being left out.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


So, you don't think defining the "legal benefits" in your statement is relevant to the argument that "black people wont give up their 'legal benefits'? Crap, you might as well say "Black people wont give up 'x'.

You're full of trash, you only answered questions that you thought you could counter.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


You entered this conversation making the argument that there would be a negative shift in the economy because black people would not give up the "legal benefits" and in return behave similar to the racist/sexist white people earlier. In that case, you very well do need to define what these legal benefits are, because else how in the world do we know what you're talking about? How are people supposed to give up something that they don't know about? How can I agree or disagree with you if I don't know the key elements that need to be removed?

I'm not arguing about specifics, but principle as well. I'm not asking you to name specific laws, but give me examples of types of laws.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


So, as I stated earlier, something which you ignored, how will that cause a negative shift if the laws currently in place will equally apply for white people if they become the new minority?

As I originally argued, your entire argument is based on the fear of the white population no longer being on top and you're using other arguments to mask that fear. That's why you show no concern when a group of Asians decide to CREATE an Asian community to include business, but if a black person says "support Black Americans", it offends you. You don't see a threat in Asians, but you do in Black America.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


I just wanted to make sure, because you went Ape bananas when I said there's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination of any sort. So, if you understand how marketing might reasonably discriminate upon race, then that should have registered in your head before your response.


Gbaji wrote:
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.


That's interesting... Let's see..

You either don't read, overlook or have forgotten about passages that I've written and had to re-quote them to you.

You don't respond to specific questions about your statements because YOU THINK it's irrelevant.

Now, you think it's MY fault that you don't understand my point. Get real dude.

My argument in one sentence is the following: If a minority is economically behind in society, in order to progress, it has to start within.

Everything that I've stated supports that one position.

Just to demonstrate it to you..
#357 Mar 10 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins.


Obviously. But if having a correct side was an initial condition, there would be no debate. Capice?


I can see your rationale, but I don't necessarily agree with it. If you give someone a math problem, or by extension, a logic problem, you don't need to know the answer in advance to define the conditions for victory, nor for there to be disagreement on the means to the correct answer.
____________________________
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.
#358 Mar 10 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Kachi wrote:
Wow. I am incredulous. You STILL got it wrong. This just isn't even funny anymore. It's sad, is what it is.


What's sad is the obvious changing of goalposts you're doing here. There is no "right", is there? I could list off every single possible interpretation of your words and you'd still insist that it was wrong. You do this because you don't actually want anyone to nail you down in terms of position because then you'd have to defend it.

I've seen pathetic attempts to weasel out of an indefensible position before, but this one has to be right at the top of pathetic.

Quote:
Granted I haven't read either of their exchanges for the last n pages, but last I checked Alma was arguing ineffectually for the correct side, while gbaji was arguing slightly less ineffectually for the wrong side. If anything it's probably an interesting case study in how both runners can lose a one-on-one race.


You don't apparently even know what the "correct side" is though. Or at least you are unwilling to say what it is. I'm not going to play 20 questions with you though. If you have something to say, say it. Don't dance around suggesting things, then insisting that "that's not it!" when I reply. It's a dumb game played by people who aren't willing to take a position on an issue and stand up for it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#359 Mar 10 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Kachi wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:

The whole point of a debate is that there is not a correct side, only winners and losers.

If you make an excellent case for chopping up orphans and making them into meat pies, you can still win an argument against your non-cannibalistic brethren. Probably by making the Donner argument, but that's irrelevant.


Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins. An internet debate is ************* Though I can see that people take the approach that the point is winning/losing irrespective of what is correct, it just seems like the least productive possible function of a debate to me.


That's a strange statement from someone who is so obviously using debating tricks to avoid having to defend his "side" in the first place. If you really think in terms of believing your position to be the correct one and then making arguments for that position, you would not be dancing round insisting that the other guy doesn't understand your position and thinking that means you "win". You'd be doing everything you could to make your position absolutely crystal clear so that there can be no confusion.


You aren't doing that though, are you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#360 Mar 10 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Kachi wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins.


Obviously. But if having a correct side was an initial condition, there would be no debate. Capice?


I can see your rationale, but I don't necessarily agree with it. If you give someone a math problem, or by extension, a logic problem, you don't need to know the answer in advance to define the conditions for victory, nor for there to be disagreement on the means to the correct answer.


For a math problem if there is a debate whether 1 + 1 = 2, it's a very short debate. Math does not debate.

A logic problem can have different solutions depending on what you are trying to solve for.

A debate is a problem that does not initially have a solution, but rather judgments are made based on evidence, supporting material, desired outcomes, and often times a little bit of ethical calculus (potentially felicific, if your participants are hedonistic utilitarians). This is not math, because math does not debate.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#361 Mar 10 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
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,


Technically, I realized that and told you exactly where to find it. You, just decided to be lazy and childish and ignore my comment as if it were irrelevant.


Well, you quoted the answer you gave. I still had to search through the thread to find it. I have enough trouble reading and responding to the posts you reply directly to mine, so I kinda ignored the ones where you responded to other posters. Perhaps if you had taken the 5 seconds to directly respond to my direct question on any of the several times I posted it, you could have saved yourself a lot of frustration. Just a thought. Typing "yes" or "no" would have been faster is all.

Quote:
Not only that, here is me directly addressing you:


No. That's you replying later about the issue after the fact. I've quoted the original statement with which I had issues several times. It's the one where you said that black people should support black businesses because no one else would, and that minorities should help out other minorities. I don't really care what words you wrote afterwards, because I wasn't asking whether you thought they should do so if those stores carry goods that they want, or are close by, or any of the dozens of other conditions you added after the fact. I wanted to know the opposite: Did you think that a black person should buy at a black owned store purely because it's black owned and for no other reason?

That was the question I kept asking, and it took you a ridiculous number of pages of spin before you finally answered it. And even though you have a couple of times now insisted that they shouldn't, your general statements seem to support policies and agendas which are in opposition to that. So I'm still left wondering whether you actually believe that, or just say you believe that because it's indefensible to say otherwise?

I'll assume, therefore, that you oppose all forms of affirmative action, hiring quotas based on race, admission benefits based on race, and private organizations who give out scholarships or rewards that restrict them based on race?

Those things all violate the principle you claim you agree with me on. Yet, so far, you've indicated that you agree with policies that target benefits to members of a given racial group on the grounds that they are needed to even out the outcomes. I also don't agree with that btw, and I'm not sure how one can claim to hold the position you claim while still supporting those things. But hey! Maybe now you'll insist that you don't support those things either and we can just call this a slam dunk for me?


Quote:
So, please tell me how is there any confusion on rather I'm talking about community or race, when I literally said that it's not about a specific race in all of the above quotes.


Yes. I get that you keep saying that it's not about race. But you also keep injecting race into the issue. Why do that? Why not just say that people should support their local communities, and their friends and families, no matter what the skin color is? Why even mention skin color? If it's not a factor, then it's irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned.

But you did anyway (and continue to do so). Which is strange to me.

Quote:
Really? How is asking you to justify your statements "irrelevant"? Doesn't that mean that your statements are "irrelevant"?


Because a statement that legal benefits should not be granted based on race doesn't require any examination of the legal benefits themselves. Thus, insisting that I list off the legal benefits I'm talking about is an irrelevant question. It's like me saying that all birds have feathers, and you respond by insisting that I list off which types of birds I'm talking about. Um... All birds.


Quote:
Haven't you realized that those questions come from your poor arguments. You can't make an argument that black Americans are harming themselves by labeling themselves without an explanation on how. You can't say that black Americans wont give up "legal benefits" without defining what these legal benefits are.


Of course you can. Because these things are based on concepts and social trends that are unaffected by the specifics. I'm making what's called a general argument. The correct way to respond to such an argument is to come up with a specific example which violates the general argument. Since all specifics must follow the general trend, this is a valid logical form of response.

I did give numerous examples to support my arguments. But what you kept doing was to say "yeah but", and then insist that I argue for this specific, and that specific, and then another, and another, and another. That's an endless argument btw. I don't have to prove every single case, since that would take forever. If you want to argue against me, you have to come up with your own specifics and then actually make an argument showing that a specific case violates the general case that I'm arguing.

You never did that. You didn't actually make any arguments. You just keep asking more and more questions without really explaining why those questions were relevant or how they proved a point you were making, or disproved a point I was making. That's why I kept calling them irrelevant. Just asking a question doesn't make it something I need to answer. You have to show that absent an answer to that question, some part of my own argument fails.

You didn't do that.

Quote:
You are creating these questions by making poor arguments. Your statements should defend themselves to the point where questions are only about misunderstandings, not facts being left out.


But only facts that are relevant to my arguments. You can't just jump up and down and insist that my arguments are poor. You have to actually show that they are in some way.

You didn't do that.


Quote:
So, you don't think defining the "legal benefits" in your statement is relevant to the argument that "black people wont give up their 'legal benefits'? Crap, you might as well say "Black people wont give up 'x'.


Yes. I could have. There's hope for you yet! :)

One of the features of a valid logical formulation is that the specifics don't really matter for the logic to work. You can literally replace a word with "x" and verify that it's true. In fact, one of the methods used to test logical statements is to replace the specific words with other words and test if the logic still works.

Let me put this in broader terms: A group of people who are today getting something for free will tend to resist giving up that free thing in the future. True?

It doesn't matter what the free things are. This is either something you believe is true, or you don't. I happen to think it's nearly axiomatically true, but I suppose it's debatable. The only significant structural part of my argument left to deal with is the assumption that recognition of changing "real" social conditions will not completely overcome the general trend of people not wanting to part with free stuff they're getting.

Absent other factors:

- Any person or group will not want to part with free things they're currently receiving.

- A group that is disadvantaged will not want to part with free things they're currently receiving.

- A group that is *not* disadvantaged will not want to part with free things they're currently receiving.

Are all of these true? I'm again going from general to specific. I admit that I'm speaking in generalities, but IMO it's up to those arguing that a specific case is an exception to that general rule to make that argument. If in general, we accept that groups of people wont give up free things if they can avoid it, unless there's some specific exception created between that group being disadvantaged versus not being disadvantaged, then the argument that legal benefits currently granted by race today wont be given up in the future when those groups are no longer disadvantaged would seem to have quite a bit of merit?

You're free to disagree, but to do so effectively, you really need to make some kind of argument as to why this general trend will not occur in this specific case. But you didn't do that. Heck. You didn't even attempt to do that.

Quote:
You entered this conversation making the argument that there would be a negative shift in the economy because black people would not give up the "legal benefits" and in return behave similar to the racist/sexist white people earlier.


That's close to what I said. I don't recall making it about economics though. I just said that it was a bad idea to create programs that benefit groups based on race because of current disadvantaged status because there's no reason to assume that when that disadvantaged status ends, that those benefits will be removed. Everything beyond that was you tossing out strawmen, including the whole "they'll enslave white people" bit. I never said that. You did.

Quote:
I'm not arguing about specifics, but principle as well.


What principle are you arguing for? I'm honestly curious.


Quote:
So, as I stated earlier, something which you ignored, how will that cause a negative shift if the laws currently in place will equally apply for white people if they become the new minority?


Because they wont equally apply for white people? Why would you assume that laws which do things like mandate easier entrance requirements for students who are black or latino will magically change to say "white"? You do understand that the language of these laws don't say things like "current groups identified as minorities based on <insert some objective criteria here>", right?

In fact, I brought up that exact point earlier. I said that if that was the objective, why not base those things purely on need and ignore race? That way, as the social dynamics shift, the distribution of those benefits will automatically shift to those in need without requiring any changes to the law. But someone (Kachi I think?) argued passionately that this was unfair because there was no way to measure the true effect of institutionalized racism on the population, so it was necessary to skew the outcomes in order to balance out for that racism in the system.

Of course, since that argument starts with the assumption that there's no way to measure it, then there's no way to know what effect it's actually having, and no way to know how much "balancing" is really needed, or when that balancing is no longer needed. Um... Which pretty much proves my point, doesn't it?

Quote:
As I originally argued, your entire argument is based on the fear of the white population no longer being on top and you're using other arguments to mask that fear. That's why you show no concern when a group of Asians decide to CREATE an Asian community to include business, but if a black person says "support Black Americans", it offends you. You don't see a threat in Asians, but you do in Black America.


That makes no sense though. If my argument was based on fear of the white population no longer being on top, wouldn't I be most worried about the non-white group that is most likely to threaten that top spot? You're making a broad claim that no only has zero support, but makes no logical sense at all.


Quote:
My argument in one sentence is the following: If a minority is economically behind in society, in order to progress, it has to start within.



It has to start within what? Did you mean "from within"? So how does this relate to affirmative action? How does this relate to scholarships for people of just one race? By "within" do you mean that the members of that race should choose to help out other members of their race purely because they both are of the same race? Doesn't that now completely reverse what you just spent the last 2 pages arguing?


You argued that a black person should not buy from a black store purely because it's owned by a black person but only if there were other non-race specific reasons (like helping out a friend or family, or member of the community). So when I asked if by "black community" you really meant "all black people" and not "people who live in a local community who happen to mostly be black", I was right to say that you really meant the former and not the latter?


Um... I'm not even sure what to say at this point. It's like you don't really understand what the words you're typing mean, but are just using them in some kind of conditioned response. You want to avoid appearing to be racially motivated, but also want to support a racially motivated "cause". But you can't see the inherent conflict between those two things. Like I've been saying: Bizarre!

Edited, Mar 10th 2011 7:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#362 Mar 10 2011 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Wow. I am incredulous. You STILL got it wrong. This just isn't even funny anymore. It's sad, is what it is.


What's sad is the obvious changing of goalposts you're doing here. There is no "right", is there? I could list off every single possible interpretation of your words and you'd still insist that it was wrong. You do this because you don't actually want anyone to nail you down in terms of position because then you'd have to defend it.

I've seen pathetic attempts to weasel out of an indefensible position before, but this one has to be right at the top of pathetic.

Quote:
Granted I haven't read either of their exchanges for the last n pages, but last I checked Alma was arguing ineffectually for the correct side, while gbaji was arguing slightly less ineffectually for the wrong side. If anything it's probably an interesting case study in how both runners can lose a one-on-one race.


You don't apparently even know what the "correct side" is though. Or at least you are unwilling to say what it is. I'm not going to play 20 questions with you though. If you have something to say, say it. Don't dance around suggesting things, then insisting that "that's not it!" when I reply. It's a dumb game played by people who aren't willing to take a position on an issue and stand up for it.


Actually, I'm genuinely waiting for you to correctly characterize my point. I just don't think you CAN. As far as I'm concerned, I've sufficiently explained my argument, and the only deficit in this exchange is that you've yet to 1) actually understand it, and 2) present a legitimate counterargument.

gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:

The whole point of a debate is that there is not a correct side, only winners and losers.

If you make an excellent case for chopping up orphans and making them into meat pies, you can still win an argument against your non-cannibalistic brethren. Probably by making the Donner argument, but that's irrelevant.


Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins. An internet debate is ************* Though I can see that people take the approach that the point is winning/losing irrespective of what is correct, it just seems like the least productive possible function of a debate to me.


That's a strange statement from someone who is so obviously using debating tricks to avoid having to defend his "side" in the first place. If you really think in terms of believing your position to be the correct one and then making arguments for that position, you would not be dancing round insisting that the other guy doesn't understand your position and thinking that means you "win". You'd be doing everything you could to make your position absolutely crystal clear so that there can be no confusion.


You aren't doing that though, are you?


Way to demonstrate another failure of reading comprehension. Is this a serious debate, or is it an internet debate? I mean if nothing else, you should have gleaned that I do not take you seriously enough to play by those rules.

Timelordwho wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Eh, not my view. A serious debate is about making the best case possible and ergo the correct side wins.


Obviously. But if having a correct side was an initial condition, there would be no debate. Capice?


I can see your rationale, but I don't necessarily agree with it. If you give someone a math problem, or by extension, a logic problem, you don't need to know the answer in advance to define the conditions for victory, nor for there to be disagreement on the means to the correct answer.


For a math problem if there is a debate whether 1 + 1 = 2, it's a very short debate. Math does not debate.

A logic problem can have different solutions depending on what you are trying to solve for.

A debate is a problem that does not initially have a solution, but rather judgments are made based on evidence, supporting material, desired outcomes, and often times a little bit of ethical calculus (potentially felicific, if your participants are hedonistic utilitarians). This is not math, because math does not debate.


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

In a world where ignorance of both the knowable and the unknowable runs rampant, I firmly believe that there are plenty of debates with initial solutions and without.
____________________________
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.
#363 Mar 11 2011 at 1:04 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Well, before we go forward, you still have some comments to address.

Let's just do one at a time, since you easily get confused.

You said the following:

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.


Earlier you said the following:

Gbaji contradicting himself wrote:
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?


Please explain how the two can coexist or decide which one is true. Let's not play the "irrelevant game", just answer the question. You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.

Let's just start over. You don't give me any hassle with my questions and I wont give you any hassle with your questions. I'll promise I'll answer every question.
#364 Mar 11 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.


Smiley: facepalm
#365 Mar 11 2011 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.


Smiley: facepalm


You just have to laugh at this point. It's absurd.
#366 Mar 11 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
We label and group stuff because it makes sense to do so. Simply labeling music as black music or granola music or old-folk music or country music or whatever, doesn't make the music better or worse or evil or good (honestly though, I've never heard people talk about black music - there's rap, gansta, soul, r&b, blues....all owe much to black artists). Labels and groups are simply a sorting and comparison mechanism for our brains.

gjabi, the 'evil' or the negative connotations only comes into play when YOU attempt to put value to the groups. If you've already decided that white > black then yeah, it wouldn't make sense to put something into a black group.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#367 Mar 11 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.


Smiley: facepalm


Why the face palm? He simply ignored my questions and I wasn't going to move on till he answered my questions. At the same time, since I did already answer his questions previously before, I told him where he can find the answer. He just decided to be lazy and come up with this lame excuse of having to "look for it". I didn't know ctrl+f "election" or "President" was that time consuming.
#368 Mar 11 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.


Smiley: facepalm


You just have to laugh at this point. It's absurd.
Sounds like a little lovers tiff:)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#369 Mar 11 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.


Smiley: facepalm


Why the face palm?
When you get kids....don't use the above logic with them, k.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#370 Mar 11 2011 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You wondered why I didn't just say "yes" or "no" to your question, the answer is because you gave me the run-around by not answering my questions, so I wasn't going to be straight forward with you and your answers.


Smiley: facepalm


Why the face palm?
When you get kids....don't use the above logic with them, k.


I'm not a parent, but I always assumed that there would be a maturity gap between children and my "peers". Thanks for the tidbit though.
#371 Mar 11 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
**
474 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
Racist, funny or who cares?



Is now definately in the realms of 'who cares', imo.



I though it hit that realm back when the argument was that the commercial was really about spousal abuse and controlling women.
____________________________
|Killienmarxs|Gloneyn|Marxs|Healenkill|
PSN: KillienMarxs -- currently playing NFS:HP and COD
#372 Mar 11 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Killienmage wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
Racist, funny or who cares?



Is now definately in the realms of 'who cares', imo.



I though it hit that realm back when the argument was that the commercial was really about spousal abuse and controlling women.


Wait....that was this thread? It was so long ago that I completely forgot that was where it started.
#373 Mar 11 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Kachi wrote:
Actually, I'm genuinely waiting for you to correctly characterize my point.


Lol. Kinda makes two of us then. How about, since it's your point and all, you characterize it.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, I've sufficiently explained my argument...


That's clearly false. Well, it's either false, or you are deliberately pretending that I don't understand your point because you don't want to have to defend it. I'm going with the latter actually, because the point you made is neither unusual nor particularly complex. Amusingly, it's the exact same point Alma is making, and he's also gone to great lengths to obfuscate it after the fact in order to avoid having to defend some of the more obvious logical gaps.


It's like a twofer in here!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#374 Mar 11 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Elinda wrote:
We label and group stuff because it makes sense to do so. Simply labeling music as black music or granola music or old-folk music or country music or whatever, doesn't make the music better or worse or evil or good (honestly though, I've never heard people talk about black music - there's rap, gansta, soul, r&b, blues....all owe much to black artists). Labels and groups are simply a sorting and comparison mechanism for our brains.


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

Quote:
gjabi, the 'evil' or the negative connotations only comes into play when YOU attempt to put value to the groups. If you've already decided that white > black then yeah, it wouldn't make sense to put something into a black group.


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


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

Edited, Mar 11th 2011 3:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#375 Mar 11 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Alma wrote:
Gbaji,

I give up
Next time, leave it at that and maybe someone will believe you. "I give up" but then write a 12 page essay is hardly giving up.
____________________________
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

#376 Mar 11 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
I think Alma is a pretty cool guy. eh fights teh gbaji and doesn’t afraid of anything...
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (68)