• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Split]When are you white?

But I answered this question:... in just the form you insisted. I did not claim that she spoke the truth in regard to answering your LarsenList of questions.

Ehhh...yes, you did. Post #155.

If I am wrong to describe drkitten's claim as a lie, then she must be telling the truth.

What possible explanations are there for my answer? Is it possible that she was mistaken in regards to that particular question? Is it possible that she thinks an answer is something different than what you think it is? I don't know. But I do know that there are other possible entities than your idea of a true statement and a lie. And I know that your accusation is reminiscent of the best of Shanek.

I refer you to your post (#155). If I was wrong to refer to drkitten's statement as a lie, then she must have answered the question. Yet, you have not been able to show where she did answer the question. And you admit that you can't.

There's a discrepancy here somewhere...
 
Larsen,

Did you actually comprehend the point I was making to you in my last post? I was not discussing any of the substance. I was just trying to point out that you write very obtusely and it has been impossible to discern the purpose to which you ask questions.

The reason why their answers "don't cut it" is because nobody has had any clue what you were talking about. I certainly didn't until your last post to me and we're currently four pages into the thread!!

As of now, I am out of the debate. I have no informed opinion on the subject and it seems very clear to me that any discussion with you on any topic would be a tragedy of miscommunication.

Which is not to say your "point" is invalid or valid. The simple fact that it isn't until four pages into a debate that your point becomes apparent indicates to me that communication with you has the wrong signal-to-noise ratio.

-marksman
 
Larsen,

Did you actually comprehend the point I was making to you in my last post? I was not discussing any of the substance. I was just trying to point out that you write very obtusely and it has been impossible to discern the purpose to which you ask questions.

The reason why their answers "don't cut it" is because nobody has had any clue what you were talking about. I certainly didn't until your last post to me and we're currently four pages into the thread!!

As of now, I am out of the debate. I have no informed opinion on the subject and it seems very clear to me that any discussion with you on any topic would be a tragedy of miscommunication.

Which is not to say your "point" is invalid or valid. The simple fact that it isn't until four pages into a debate that your point becomes apparent indicates to me that communication with you has the wrong signal-to-noise ratio.

-marksman

If I have not made my point clear, you are most welcome to ask for clarification. I have done my best to answer your questions.
 
Ehhh...yes, you did. Post #155.

If I am wrong to describe drkitten's claim as a lie, then she must be telling the truth.

I refer you to your post (#155). If I was wrong to refer to drkitten's statement as a lie, then she must have answered the question. Yet, you have not been able to show where she did answer the question. And you admit that you can't.

There's a discrepancy here somewhere...
If a statement is not true, then the person making it lied? There are no other possibilities?
 
What are those?

Either she lies or she doesn't.
Sorry, but you have the wrong dichotomy.

It's not lie/not lie.
It's true statement/lie.

And it's a false dichotomy at that. I do wish you would at least pretend to read my posts. I said this already:

What possible explanations are there for my answer? Is it possible that she was mistaken in regards to that particular question? Is it possible that she thinks an answer is something different than what you think it is? I don't know. But I do know that there are other possible entities than your idea of a true statement and a lie.
 
Sorry, but you have the wrong dichotomy.

It's not lie/not lie.
It's true statement/lie.

And it's a false dichotomy at that. I do wish you would at least pretend to read my posts. I said this already:

Enough of this rubbish.

Either drkitten answered the question, in which case it should be easy for you to point out where.

Or she didn't, in which case I am not wrong to refer to her claim that she did answer all the questions as a lie.

You have admitted that you can not show me where she answered the question. Ergo, it is a false statement to claim that she did answer the question. Ergo, she lied when she claimed she had answered the question.

Enough is enough, hgc. Cut the crap.
 
Enough of this rubbish.

Either drkitten answered the question, in which case it should be easy for you to point out where.

Or she didn't, in which case I am not wrong to refer to her claim that she did answer all the questions as a lie.

You have admitted that you can not show me where she answered the question. Ergo, it is a false statement to claim that she did answer the question. Ergo, she lied when she claimed she had answered the question.

Enough is enough, hgc. Cut the crap.
You asked me if it was wrong to call her a liar. I told you. If defending your bad behavior is so distasteful, then you can certainly ignore me. I will be my own guide on what to post here.

"Cut the crap." Physician, heal thyself.
 
I'll try to explain it the same way it was explained to me. I may not do a good job, but I will try.

Imagine a foot-race. The distance is 18 miles. However, instead of everyone starting on the same line, some people start on a line that is ahead of others, and some start on a line behind others. Everyone's starting line is laid out in a different place, though some are separated by mere inches, while others are separated by many miles, and everything in between. Everyone runs only 18 miles. This means that their finish lines are all in different places, too. When they finish, some people are still ahead of others, and some are still behind.

Now, imagine that there are prizes for those who finish out in front. The people whose starting lines were set miles behind those of the front-runners will never win those prizes unless someone helps them or changes the rules, because they are handicapped from the outset by their starting places. Since the runners cannot decide where they will start, the help must be given to them at the end of the race. They must be allowed to "catch up" to the front runners in some way, so they can have an equal shot at those prizes.

This analogy is a very simplified form of what happens in the U.S. from birth to high-school graduation. If you start out as a child in poverty, and you attend low-quality, under-funded schools, live in depressed neighborhoods, deal with high crime rates, and have poor nutrition and medical care, then you are already handicapped compared to kids who start out middle-class or better, attending well-funded, well-run schools, living in safe neighborhoods, and having access to good food, good medical care, and so forth.

Affirmative Action is one help-plan established to try to make things more equal. The problem is that you can't fix the race at the end and call that equality. You have to do something, or many things, so that people can all start out on the same line, or darned close to it. Affirmative Action is better than doing nothing, but it will never make the starting lines even. Until that is done, the Race race can never be run equally. I mean, if the fastest runner is placed two miles behind the slowest, but both are allowed to run only 18 miles, it doesn't matter how fast (read: smart) either of them actually is; the guy who starts in front, ends in front, even if it takes him two days to get there instead of two hours.

The changes you are talking about must come from many areas, all at once. How do we lift everyone from poverty? The practical answer is that we can't. We are always going to have poor people and rich people.

If you are poor, your nutrition suffers. When you are a child with a developing brain, this can be disasterous. All children, in order to be equal, must have the same high nutrition level, which will increase the relative equality of their neural development. All children must be born to non-drug/alcohol using parents. All children must have relatively equal housing, clothing, and medical care, from conception on. All children must live in relative safety, from both their own families and from strangers.

This is a practical impossibility, especially in a country this size, and at the present time, with present attitudes and distribution of resources.

Can we make sure every child gets the same level of nutrition? Well, we do have programs in place here, like food stamps and food banks, but many people complain that's unfair. "Everyone should have to work for his money, like I do!" Yeah, well.....

You said, in respose to my statement that only 3% of all editors are black,
Sure, if the reasons are based on racial concepts and not education/skills. That's why it is so important that we know exactly what we base our segregation - and I use that word deliberately - of races on.
Racial concepts often determine our education and skills. They are intertwined issues. If you live in a poor neighborhood, with run-down, underfunded schools, where there are very few computers, and outdated, torn-up textbooks, and teachers who are burnt-out or undereducated themselves, and your nutrition/brain development is poor, and on top of all that you are not white, then you are penalized from the outset.

You can do things to change your circumstance, but usually as an adult, after the race has been run.

The only way I know how to change this, myself, is to do what I've done since I came to this forum: try to get skeptics to question their assumptions about race and equality, try to get people to see each aspect of the issue, and try to help people see that overt racism is not the same problem as covert, systemic, institutionalized racism. Try to get people to see that there is such a thing in the first place. I keep trying. One person at a time.

If you have a better solution that will address not only the problems I have outlined, but also the many problems I haven't even touched on yet, many of us would be very glad to hear it!
 
Last edited:
I've been ignored! Noooo!

At any rate, how about the simple idea that these things are extreme archetypal definitions we make in our heads and we just compare existing things to see which archetype it more closely matches?
 
slingblade,

The changes I am talking about has to come from many areas, but I fully realize that they can't come all at once. Nobody expects it to (unless you expect a big revolution, and those have a tendency not to work all that well in the long run). But if people really want to end these problems, they have every possibility to achieve that goal. The question is not, can they do it? The question is, do they want it?

Yes, you can lift everyone from poverty. It isn't a natural law - or even an economic law - that some people have to live in poverty. If you think that, then why should you even try to help people who do live in poverty? Somebody has to live that way, right? Why help them?

It is far from a practical impossibility to help people out of poverty. The US is by far the single most powerful nation the world has ever seen. It can eradicate any other nation on Earth. It is the most powerful economy ever seen. It has put several men on the moon. It can do whatever it bloody well wants to. Eradicating poverty within its own borders? Sure, it can. Just look at how far it has gotten in less than 250 years! From hillbilly colonialists to the most supreme world power ever seen.

Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different. What the US doesn't want, is to help its own citizens to avoid even the most grinding poverty. Affirmative Action is a naive and well-intentioned, but ultimately a doomed way of solving the problem. You need to make it possible for anyone - or at least, make it irrelevant to what "race" you belong to - to achieve the goals of academia. What you can't do, is lower the bar. Not only is it an insult to those who can't get in otherwise, it also undermines science itself.

Again, if you lower the bar because of people's "race" - why shouldn't you lower the bar because someone comes along and claims to be able to prove a paranormal phenomenon - if only you'd lower the bar, just a little bit?

Is science something we decide based on societal pressure? If so, then we'll have to accept Gary Schwartz' "evidence" of an afterlife. I'm sure you can see the problem with that one.

Drop this notion that some "races" - however you define it - are less endowed than others. Make education independent of economical and racial status. The object is to get the best brains to the best educations, regardless of where they come from.

Sure, that takes quite a lot of changes in your society. But...isn't that what the USA is all about? If you put your mind to it, you can do whatever you want?
 
Claus, I agree with everything you've said. And I'm doing what I can with what I have.
 
Very well: What is my race? How do you define it?

As you can see, we are right back where we started.

Well, the way I see it, "race" is a classification that isn't precise, like "black" and "white" for colours. How do you know when something's really "white" ? Unfortunately, there's no way to tell if one's "black" or not, simply because there are not only too many variables, but each individual will interpret it differently.

I do agree, though, that many people that are called "black" aren't black any more than they are white. Unfortunately we can't just split it into hundreds of sub-categories just to satisfy everyone's whim.
 
Well, the way I see it, "race" is a classification that isn't precise, like "black" and "white" for colours. How do you know when something's really "white" ? Unfortunately, there's no way to tell if one's "black" or not, simply because there are not only too many variables, but each individual will interpret it differently.

I do agree, though, that many people that are called "black" aren't black any more than they are white. Unfortunately we can't just split it into hundreds of sub-categories just to satisfy everyone's whim.

Perhaps not.

But what to do, when race is the measuring stick we use to e.g. grant college funds?
 

Back
Top Bottom