Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 474
  1.    #81  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    I interpreted it to be that you were making assumptions about how a person's political views are based on their religion.
    That is what he meant. And political correctness aside, that isn't a problem. Is it wrong to assume that devout Catholics are going to be averse to voting for pro-choice candidates? To assume someone's political view because of their religion is not to assume anything about their worth as an individual.
  2.    #82  
    Originally posted by NeilMcD
    Anyone see yesterday's Boondocks strip? Waa-a-a-a-y over the line but that's what makes america great.. people have the choice to read this often inflammatory comic strip, make up their own minds about its subject matter and respond accordingly (post it on the wall or use it to line the bird's cage) (I've attached it below)
    Things that step way over the line are more easily tollerated (by me at least) when they are completely innaccurate.
  3. #83  
    There I go, forgetting my history again:

    The implication that Hitler was a democratically elected leader was bugging me all morning so I did some refreshing-my-memory on the web.

    Generally speaking, Hitler WAS democraticaly elected, but he manipulated the vote in many subtle ways:

    • Promised Everything to Everyone during the Depression
    • Preached a platform that the Germans were not responsibile for their own suffering
    • Burned down the Reichstag and blamed the communists, his only major rival.


    You can say that he technically was democratically elected in that no one held guns to the voters heads and said "vote Nazi or die" BUT the populace wasn't given much of an alternative to vote otherwise.
  4. #84  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    That is what he meant. And political correctness aside, that isn't a problem. Is it wrong to assume that devout Catholics are going to be averse to voting for pro-choice candidates? To assume someone's political view because of their religion is not to assume anything about their worth as an individual.
    Some would argue that assuming anything about anyone based on religion, gender, race, or any factor is a problem. (What is that old saying about why you shouldn't assume?...?)
    Yardie actually addressed this when he clarified to say that none of the Jewish folks he has personally met opposed to war with Iraq. That is different that assuming.
  5.    #85  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Some would argue that assuming anything about anyone based on religion, gender, race, or any factor is a problem.
    And they would be wrong. :-) A few examples:
    Is it wrong to assume a Catholic has more respect for the Catholic Church than a Hindu?
    Is it wrong to assume a woman has different health needs than a man?
    Is it wrong to assume someone's opinions of civil rights leaders differ according to their race?

    Please note that not once do I allude to any judgements of a person's worth. Valuing people using race, religion, sex, or anything they cannot control, as a predictor is wrong, not only morally but logically. However there is nothing wrong with making factual judgements. Looking at my last name, Ramsauer, and assuming my background is German would be an example of such an assumption. However looking at my last name and thinking "Oh, he's a bum because he's of German ancestry" would definitely be wrong.

    (What is that old saying about why you shouldn't assume?...?)
    Because it makes an *** out of you, not me.
  6. #86  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Looking at my last name, Ramsauer, and assuming my background is German would be an example of such an assumption. However looking at my last name and thinking "Oh, he's a bum because he's of German ancestry" would definitely be wrong.
    But what if I look at your last name, Ramsauer, and assume your background is German and, therefore, assume that you are filled with nationalistic pride when "Eidelweiss" is played (such that you begin making emotional faces as portrayed by Christopher Plummer , although I think the Von Trapps were technically Austrian). Notice, I'm not making a value judgment about you but I am making an assumption about what you think, which I think can be wrong in certain circumstances.

    For example, I don't think all Jewish people believe we should go to war with Iraq (which was the original point of discussion). Therefore, I think it is incorrect to assume that all Jewish people think one way on a political issue just b/c they are Jewish.
  7.    #87  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    But what if I look at your last name, Ramsauer, and assume your background is German and, therefore, assume that you are filled with nationalistic pride when "Eidelweiss" is played. Notice, I'm not making a value judgment about you but I am making an assumption about what you think, which I think can be wrong in certain circumstances.
    Do you mean wrong morally or wrong factually? Of course it can be wrong factually. As per your question, so long as the factual judgement doesn't impair all people's right to form their own impressions on peers, I don't see a problem. Applying this to your question, if your thinking I love Eidelweiss (btw, I have no idea what that is!) makes you think I'm in any way better or worse than average, that is the same as saying "He's German so he's a jerk." But what is wrong, I ask you, with using laws of probability to assess facts? Again, intent matters.
  8. #88  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Do you mean wrong morally or wrong factually?
    I think it could be wrong factually and in certain cases wrong "morally." I don't think I was making this distinction, however. Frankly, I am not sure I buy into your distinction. My initial point was that people have been criticized in the past for making assumptions about politicians based on their religion.

    if your thinking I love Eidelweiss (btw, I have no idea what that is!) makes you think I'm in any way better or worse than average, that is the same as saying "He's German so he's a jerk."
    Here, me thinking that you are German, ergo you like "Eidelweiss" is factually wrong. And possibly, morally wrong if you in actuality take offense to the movie, The Sound of Music (which is what the reference was to.)

    But what is wrong, I ask you, with using laws of probability to assess facts?
    and if you take my name, Kelley Cannon, and assume I am Irish then you would be factually wrong.

    From Kramsauer from earlierIs it wrong to assume a Catholic has more respect for the Catholic Church than a Hindu?
    Possibly. I know several Catholics who have little respect for their church. Unfortunately, I do not know personally any Hindus, so I cannot ask them.

    From KRamsauer from earlierIs it wrong to assume a woman has different health needs than a man?
    Probably not, as this assumes provable fact (i.e. we have different physical parts therefore different health needs) and is not an assumption of what someone else believes.

    From KRamsauer from earlierIs it wrong to assume someone's opinions of civil rights leaders differ according to their race?
    Possibly. Do you think Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson have the same opinion of Malcolm X?
  9.    #89  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Possibly. Do you think Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson have the same opinion of Malcolm X?
    Probably not, but since I'm not holding either of them in disregard because of the color of their skin, it's a moot point. I hold Jesse Jackson in disregard for some reasons, and I respect him for some reasons. Same with Alan Keyes. I'm just not understanding why such a fact (race) so salient to discussion of civil rights cannot be used to predict someone's opinion of the matter or to form a better understanding of that person. Unfortunately the very notion of forming hypotheses regarding our fellow man has become taboo. As I see it, if your intentions are not to disadvantage someone on the basis of something they cannot control why shouldn't you recognize someone's religion, race, sex, height, age, etc.? Unfortunately I can tell you this all I want, but it is impossible to convince people this is how I think when I meet new people.
  10.    #90  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Here, me thinking that you are German, ergo you like "Eidelweiss" is factually wrong. And possibly, morally wrong if you in actuality take offense to the movie, The Sound of Music (which is what the reference was to.)
    I don't think so, actually. If you have no reason to suspect I take offense to the movie, you aren't morally wrong. If you think I do, then you are. Intentions count, remember. If you have no reason to suspect I take offense to that movie (I really need to see it one of these days) but I do, that is my problem, not yours. You did all you could. In such a situation I need to tell you I take offense to the movie, you say "oh sorry, I didn't think you would," I say "I understand," we have a laugh and beer and go about our lives happy.
  11. #91  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Probably not, but since I'm not holding either of them in disregard because of the color of their skin, it's a moot point...Unfortunately I can tell you this all I want, but it is impossible to convince people this is how I think when I meet new people.
    I don't disagree that most people automatically make assumptions about other people based on different traits. Nor am I in the least implying that you, KRamsauer, have evil motives for doing so. I'm just saying that every time you make assumptions about someone's beliefs based on one of those factors, you should also prepare for the possibility that (1) are are wrong about what that person believes and (2) that you have offended that person by assuming they believe a certain way.
  12. #92  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    we have a laugh and beer and go about our lives happy.
    Let's just jump straight to that without stopping to sing "Eidelweiss" first, please.
  13. #93  
    Originally posted by yardie
    So are you telling me that the majority of scientists dont know what they are talking about?
    It is much more likely you don't know what you're talking about.

    Originally posted by yardie

    If Antarctica is getting colder why is it that chunks of it the size of some states are falling off?
    http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n5c1.htm

    Is a link to a short summary of Nature's 35 year Antarctical overall temperature study, indicating that Antarctica is getting colder faster than any place on earth.

    You see, Yardie, Antarctica is covered with ice. Ice spills into the warmer salt water ocean, melts, and chunks split off.

    These are called "Icebergs." You may have heard of them in your studies.
  14. #94  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    [...] Yardie actually addressed this when he clarified to say that none of the Jewish folks he has personally met opposed to war with Iraq. That is different that assuming.
    Not really. Anecdotal evidence is horribly unreliable. Just because every person of $ETHNICITY that one has met has $CHARACTERISTIC_NOT_BASED_ON_GENETICS, there is no de facto basis on concluding that every person of $ETHNICITY has $CHARACTERISTIC_NOT_BASED_ON_GENETICS. It is an assumption just the same.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #95  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The point that I was trying to make is that I have yet to meet a meet a Jewish person who oppose war with Iraq.
    Must be their international conspiracy.
  16. #96  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Not really. Anecdotal evidence is horribly unreliable. Just because every person of $ETHNICITY that one has met has $CHARACTERISTIC_NOT_BASED_ON_GENETICS, there is no de facto basis on concluding that every person of $ETHNICITY has $CHARACTERISTIC_NOT_BASED_ON_GENETICS. It is an assumption just the same.
    It isn't an assumption as to Individuals of A, B, and C of X Ethnicity that you have just met. It may be for Individuals D-Z of X Ethnicity.
  17. #97  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    It isn't an assumption as to Individuals of A, B, and C of X Ethnicity that you have just met. It may be for Individuals D-Z of X Ethnicity.
    If you've just met them, it may still be an assumption. I think you've gotten my point on the whole, though, or maybe you haven't. ;~~~
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #98  
    Originally posted by NeilMcD
    There I go, forgetting my history again:

    The implication that Hitler was a democratically elected leader was bugging me all morning so I did some refreshing-my-memory on the web.

    Generally speaking, Hitler WAS democraticaly elected, but he manipulated the vote in many subtle ways:

    • Promised Everything to Everyone during the Depression
    • Preached a platform that the Germans were not responsibile for their own suffering
    • Burned down the Reichstag and blamed the communists, his only major rival.


    You can say that he technically was democratically elected in that no one held guns to the voters heads and said "vote Nazi or die" BUT the populace wasn't given much of an alternative to vote otherwise.
    Bush was also technically democratically elected, I'm still not convinced that election was kosher...
    As for the list Bush did the same things (except for burning down the Reichstag... of which the details are still not 100% clear)
    All politicians promise the world and blacken their opposition...

    I thought the cartoon was actually quite funny..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #99  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Waging a war based on hypothetical scenarios is setting a very dangerous precedent. Countries should not be allowed to attack other countries based on perceived/hypothetical threats.

    The U.S wants to attack Iraq because it knows that it cannot vigorously defend itself. Its like a bully picking on the little kid down the street and robbing his candy. Only in this scenario, the little kid is a small country and the candy is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.


    Cmon....Welcome to the age of nuclear war.
  20. #100  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Here, me thinking that you are German, ergo you like "Eidelweiss" is factually wrong. And possibly, morally wrong if you in actuality take offense to the movie, The Sound of Music (which is what the reference was to.)
    actually The Sound of Music was located in Austria...
    This would be you are american because you like maple leafs....

    fyi Edelweiss is a (white) flower that grows in the Alps...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions