[diana_eva]

 jonottawa, on 2016-December-07, 17:58, said:

It's funny how people reference an apology and yet the apology doesn't say what they claim it says. He's apologizing for the words he said.

I only said he apologized for the video. Do you agree that this is Trump's apology, issued after the video with his talk about women came out?

The fact I was trying to establish was simple. Does he, or does he not, admit that he said those words.

He admits to have said them.

Here's his first attempt to apologize BTW:
https://www.donaldjt...donald-j.-trump

So he did admit the video is real (twice). That is the fact I was trying to establish. The rest is up to each viewer you don't have to explain to them what to think.

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-07, 17:51, said:

Complaining about ad hominem attacks has become a time honored tradition for idiots who dislike being called idiots...

In the case of Nigel, he seems to have been emotionally crushed when his hobby horse got summarily dismissed and he is reacting by lashing out...

Fallacious arguments (e.g. personal attacks, straw-men) spoil sensible discussion

[jonottawa]

US Steel CEO: Could Rehire 10,000, Trump Victory Bringing ‘Environment of Positive Optimism’

If he keeps this up, they're going to have to make room on Mt. Rushmore for President Trump!

[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-07, 18:39, said:

Fallacious arguments (e.g. personal attacks, straw-men) spoil sensible discussion

an ad hominem argument proceeds as follows:

This person is a bad human being for the following asserted reasons

Therefore any idea espoused by this person is bad


I prefer the following:

This idea espoused by this person is bad for the following asserted reasons

If the person consistently espouses bad ideas, then this person is a bad person

I think I have worked out why nige calls my arguments ad hominem, The reasoning he uses seems to be similar to the ad hominem fallacy

mikeh made an argument I don't like

an ad hominem argument is a bad argument

therefore mikeh's argument should be called an ad hominem argument, because then everyone will agree with me and dislike it.

Kinda pathetic, really.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 20:49, said:

I prefer the following:

This idea espoused by this person is bad for the following asserted reasons

If the person consistently espouses bad ideas, then this person is a bad person

I can't agree with this. After all, from one of my conservative friend's point of view, all your ideas are bad, but again from his/her point of view, you aren't necessarily bad, just clueless or being duped.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

You have now further clarified your character. You are happy to write long paragraphs attacking me for comments I made in response to specific posts, yet you can't be bothered to see whether my comments were reasonable? You simply assume that they couldn't be.

This is what you get when you disagree with the person who, in one of the first posts I remember from him, stated that he would like to discuss issues. But Nige, I'll bet you already knew that Anyway, thanks for the support.

[Al_U_Card]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 18:15, said:

Thus climate deniers v climate experts. A used car salesmen or a rich egomaniacal man who inherited 140MM from his father is entitled to as much respect as several hundred scientists with multiple degrees, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and in total thousands of people-years experience on the topic...after all...we can't be sure that Trump doesn't know more about climate science than the scientists. At the very least, the fact that Trump says it is all a hoax is surely evidence that it may be a hoax? How can we be sure?

It would make me laugh all day long if this sort of argument weren't the staple for right wing politicians, and weren't a winning formula.

Or, any person shown that the only cause for alarm comes from models full of assumptions that cannot predict anything because the uncertainty associated with their calculations invalidates them. It then becomes clear that all claims and positions predicated on them are a scam if they are presented as factual and representative of reality. Such is the state of "belief" that the climate changes based on a factor that can only have marginal effect, at most, if any, within natural variability.
Nothing to do with character or affiliation.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 18:15, said:

Strangely this 'we can't be sure' idea didn't appear in her postings until we started helping her with fact checking. Prior to that, she seemed perfectly happy to repeat, as factual, bigoted ideas with some assurance. Funny, that.

Yes, I am questioning what I previously thought was true. You should try it sometime.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 18:15, said:

She is invoking that incredibly dangerous, and very successful, notion that there are always two sides to everything, and that by definition each side is entitled to be taken seriously. Thus climate deniers v climate experts. A used car salesmen or a rich egomaniacal man who inherited 140MM from his father is entitled to as much respect as several hundred scientists with multiple degrees, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and in total thousands of people-years experience on the topic...after all...we can't be sure that Trump doesn't know more about climate science than the scientists. At the very least, the fact that Trump says it is all a hoax is surely evidence that it may be a hoax? How can we be sure?

Incredibly dangerous? Really? You mean like the two sides' thoughts on Iran getting nukes? Now, THAT I would call dangerous.

Perhaps climate change is dangerous. It is a bit disconcerting that our new president wants to remove all funding on that front. I personally don't know enough to support one side or the other. I refuse to say climate change is a hoax simply because the conservatives that I tend to agree with are saying that. I really am a bit apprehensive about writing the next paragraph because I am simply writing what I remember and it would take a whole lot of research to back either claim up. But I'm going to do it anyway.

Few are going to dispute that there are many scientists that fear that man-made climate change will have disastrous effects. That being said, I have heard several reports of the data being doctored to make it appear that temperatures are rising when they aren't. I will admit that it is quite possible that every one of those stories that I remember may have come from a source like Hannity, Breitbart, etc., but the narrative was that data from places where the average temperature declined was conveniently "lost" (similar to Hillary's emails - sorry, I couldn't resist. ) I refuse to say that I absolutely believe that narrative - I would be a fool to say it. However, I would be just as much of a fool to say it was impossible; after all, just as big coal and big oil have huge incentives to make the climate change issue go away, big green energy has incentive to make it not go away.

That's right, Mike, just as I would be a fool to say that it's impossible, I would consider you just as much of a fool if you try to tell me it's impossible, no matter how much of an idiot you try to paint me as for making these statements. For you can't be 100% sure that big green energy hasn't got you duped. You can feel that the probably is 99.9% that you are right; you can even say that the probability is so low that you can ignore it without much harm (I think you'd be wrong to do so, but I can't call you a fool for thinking that), but you or anybody else would be a fool to think that there is absolutely zero chance that the whole climate change issue has been overblown by people that can profit by its existence.

After all, at one time, people were called fools for thinking that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Gailleo was jailed for that belief. If you lived in Galileo's time, are you so sure that you would have been the person that agreed with Galileo? Or would you have believed what was commonly thought, that the Earth was the center of the universe? Can you say with 100% certainty that there is no chance that in 200 years, people will look back on those silly 2016 rubes that thought climate change was going to be the undoing of civilization?

That being said, the "climate change being a problem" seems to be the current thinking in the scientific world. If those scientists are right, then I really hope that Trump surrounds himself with advisors that will make him rethink his position to eliminate funding for climate change research. If it turns out to be false, we will have wasted some assets but we will have saved future generations from having to confront the issue. However, if it is true and we really need to change course on how energy needs are met, we need to know that ASAP and then do something about it. Losing 4 or 8 years and having climate change scientists go into other fields will work out very poorly in this case. The price of the insurance isn't that great in the overall scheme of things and I think we should continue the research even if I think there's only a 20% chance that it's necessary (and my current thinking is that it's higher than 20%.)

However, there are many issues in which having two far different schools of thought isn't dangerous. For example, neither the presence nor the absence of Common Core will result in the destruction of humankind or anything close to it. Nor will higher taxes or lower taxes or the "fair tax" or a more progressive tax or a flat tax or a welfare state or a total lack of welfare or... well you get the idea. So I'm not sure why the notion that there are two sides to any issue is so incredibly dangerous.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-December-07, 22:39, said:

Or, any person shown that the only cause for alarm comes from models full of assumptions that cannot predict anything because the uncertainty associated with their calculations invalidates them. It then becomes clear that all claims and positions predicated on them are a scam if they are presented as factual and representative of reality. Such is the state of "belief" that the climate changes based on a factor that can only have marginal effect, at most, if any, within natural variability.
Nothing to do with character or affiliation.

There's the other side of the coin. This got cross-posted with my reply so I didn't see it when I posted.

While I can't be sure, I have to guess that neither MikeH or Al_U_Card know enough about the science to be sure.

However, there are a lot of smart scientists working on this now. Science has a way of making great leaps forward at certain times. Although there is a lot of uncertainty now, it's possible that our fine scientists will develop ways to get rid of a lot of that uncertainty and maybe within a generation we will know whether we need to take drastic steps. Perhaps we will find out that it was either a hoax or hysteria based on bad assumptions. Or perhaps we will develop new energy sources and it won't matter whether it was a hoax or not but we will have helped humankind by creating renewable energy.

Even those that think that the whole climate change issue is silly should be willing to take out some insurance against it not being silly. I say this simply because there are so many people that know the science that say it's a serious matter.

In other words, let the scientists do their job.

[PassedOut]

Donald Trump just insulted a union leader on Twitter. Then the phone started to ring.

Quote

Half an hour after Trump tweeted about Jones on Wednesday, the union leader's phone began to ring and kept ringing, he said. One voice asked: What kind of car do you drive? Another said: We’re coming for you.

He wasn’t sure how these people found his number.

“Nothing that says they’re gonna kill me, but, you know, you better keep your eye on your kids,” Jones said later on MSNBC. “We know what car you drive. Things along those lines.”

And likely four+ years left with Trump.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-07, 22:40, said:

Yes, I am questioning what I previously thought was true. You should try it sometime.

Incredibly dangerous? Really? You mean like the two sides' thoughts on Iran getting nukes? Now, THAT I would call dangerous.

Perhaps climate change is dangerous. It is a bit disconcerting that our new president wants to remove all funding on that front. I personally don't know enough to support one side or the other. I refuse to say climate change is a hoax simply because the conservatives that I tend to agree with are saying that. I really am a bit apprehensive about writing the next paragraph because I am simply writing what I remember and it would take a whole lot of research to back either claim up. But I'm going to do it anyway.

Few are going to dispute that there are many scientists that fear that man-made climate change will have disastrous effects. That being said, I have heard several reports of the data being doctored to make it appear that temperatures are rising when they aren't. I will admit that it is quite possible that every one of those stories that I remember may have come from a source like Hannity, Breitbart, etc., but the narrative was that data from places where the average temperature declined was conveniently "lost" (similar to Hillary's emails - sorry, I couldn't resist. ) I refuse to say that I absolutely believe that narrative - I would be a fool to say it. However, I would be just as much of a fool to say it was impossible; after all, just as big coal and big oil have huge incentives to make the climate change issue go away, big green energy has incentive to make it not go away.

That's right, Mike, just as I would be a fool to say that it's impossible, I would consider you just as much of a fool if you try to tell me it's impossible, no matter how much of an idiot you try to paint me as for making these statements. For you can't be 100% sure that big green energy hasn't got you duped. You can feel that the probably is 99.9% that you are right; you can even say that the probability is so low that you can ignore it without much harm (I think you'd be wrong to do so, but I can't call you a fool for thinking that), but you or anybody else would be a fool to think that there is absolutely zero chance that the whole climate change issue has been overblown by people that can profit by its existence.

After all, at one time, people were called fools for thinking that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Gailleo was jailed for that belief. If you lived in Galileo's time, are you so sure that you would have been the person that agreed with Galileo? Or would you have believed what was commonly thought, that the Earth was the center of the universe? Can you say with 100% certainty that there is no chance that in 200 years, people will look back on those silly 2016 rubes that thought climate change was going to be the undoing of civilization?

That being said, the "climate change being a problem" seems to be the current thinking in the scientific world. If those scientists are right, then I really hope that Trump surrounds himself with advisors that will make him rethink his position to eliminate funding for climate change research. If it turns out to be false, we will have wasted some assets but we will have saved future generations from having to confront the issue. However, if it is true and we really need to change course on how energy needs are met, we need to know that ASAP and then do something about it. Losing 4 or 8 years and having climate change scientists go into other fields will work out very poorly in this case. The price of the insurance isn't that great in the overall scheme of things and I think we should continue the research even if I think there's only a 20% chance that it's necessary (and my current thinking is that it's higher than 20%.)

However, there are many issues in which having two far different schools of thought isn't dangerous. For example, neither the presence nor the absence of Common Core will result in the destruction of humankind or anything close to it. Nor will higher taxes or lower taxes or the "fair tax" or a more progressive tax or a flat tax or a welfare state or a total lack of welfare or... well you get the idea. So I'm not sure why the notion that there are two sides to any issue is so incredibly dangerous.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to take you at face value. I have never said that it is dangerous to have two (or more) schools of thought on a topic. Only an idiot would suggest that.

I have said that it is dangerous to automatically consider competing ideas of even approximately equal value if the reason for doing so is that one side disagrees with the other,

To make it simple for you:

Let's say that one person claims that the moon is made of cheese and several astronauts who went there, and dozens of scientists who have examined moon rocks brought back to earth, and hundreds of scientists with appropriate doctorates have examined radar and other images, and have measured the orbital path of the moon and have estimated its mass, and have shown that a lunar size mass of cheese would have disintegrated by now......ok...I mean.....how can you be ABSOLUTELY sure that the moon isn't made of cheese? I mean, someone said it is, so that has to count as evidence, doesn't it?


Btw, you really should get a new source of fake news and conspiracy theories. Climategate, that manufactured hoax about falsified data, was disproven years ago.

Also: there isn't, afaik, a single reputable climate change expert who denies that the effects of global warming can and do include large areas and periods of time of unusually cold weather. Remember last winter and the horrible cold spell in the eastern US?

I understand why a product of a typical education may find this counter-intuitive, but that unusual cold spell was a direct result of global warming.

Have you ever watched a pot of water come to a boil? Even noticed that the contents of the pot sometimes swirl as the water heats? The atmosphere is a gas not a liquid, but both are fluids and both experience convective currents. Add heat to the atmosphere, and the currents get stronger on average...and it is the average that concerns us.

Warming the atmosphere has the effect of weakening something called the Polar Vortex, which is a system of winds and pressure differentials in the northern atmosphere that has the effect of trapping the very cold air in the region. With the weakening of that vortex, cold air usually trapped in the far north escapes and, in great masses, swings South. Now, the resulting drop in temperatures in the eastern US and Canada is offset by the far-away significant warming of the Artic. So on average the earth is warming, but from time to time there will be local fluctuations. Indeed, it is basic physics that when one has a system in flux, with existing variations, add energy and the fluctuations will grow larger. The trend is towards warmer temperature on average, but there will be local movements in the opposite direction.

Which is why people like Al can link to sources that purport to show that in some areas temperatures are not rising. The atmosphere is a massive system, with complex and poorly understood interactions both within it and with land and sea. When I took chemical engineering in the 1970s, for example, we were told that we needn't worry about Carbon emissions because excess carbon would be absorbed in the oceans.

However, while there is much work to be done in understanding the atmosphere, we are not in the 1970s anymore, and climate modelling has become ever more accurate and powerdul. We may not know all the answers but we definitely know enough to be worried, notwithstanding what the fraudsters behind climategate want you to believe.


Say you have cancer. You go to an oncologist and he prescribes a painful course of treatment that will, because you live in a very cruel society, cost you half your savings and offers only a 80% chance of success. You then see your priest who says that for only 1/10th of your savings, he will provide faith healing guaranteed to save you, provided only that you promise to take no medical treatment at all.

Clearly the priest's offer, if entitled to equal respect to that of the oncologist, is the one to follow. Which one would you follow and why. Answer that honestly and maybe, just maybe you'll start to understand the argument.

[Elianna]

We may have already moved on from this topic, but I would point out that saying that something someone said is racist is very different than calling the person racist.

I don't think it's productive at all to engage in name-calling, which is what calling someone racist would be.

I do however believe that everyone is susceptible to racist thoughts, and that the main goal of having a fair and equitable society is to recognize those thoughts (usually coming from a place of fear or ignorance) and not act on them. (And acting includes verbal/written actions.)

I also operate from a point of view that very few people actually want to be racist (if someone wants to be, then I really have nothing to say to them), and so pointing out actions that are racist are ways to help people not act in a racist manner.

Another example of times I would say something to someone: when someone says something implying "URBAN schools" or "THOSE children" (the latter not said here, but said to me in other locations) - those are clearly codewords about children of color, and if someone doesn't know that, then they need to be told.

Going back to the common core thread, I talked about my students, and how I teach them, and what I get them to do. Today I witnessed a teacher doing something extremely similar with 9th graders at my school and having them all on task, forming questions that a certain equation could answer. I know that people in that thread expressed shock when I verified that I taught at a "urban" (90+% Latino/African American students - closer to 100% than 90%) that had about 85% of students on free-or-reduced lunch. I think that showed preconceived notions of what students of color could do, and revealed some racist thoughts. I think that calling those people racist would be a complete overbid, as most when I pointed out where I worked seemed to at least be willing to change their worldview which in my mind shows someone with an open mind.

And my goal in life is to reach people who have an open mind (or to open minds, if I can).

Basically, calling someone's actions racists allows that they may learn from them, and can change. Calling someone themselves racist will likely entrench them in whatever they're thinking, and not allow that people can grow.

The trick, though, is that if it's been pointed out to you that an action/thought was racist (like that employers shouldn't hire African Americans due to fear of litigation) and it has been explained why that thought is racist, you don't then decide that you're being called racist and double-down on your statements.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 20:49, said:

an ad hominem argument proceeds as follows:
This person is a bad human being for the following asserted reasons
Therefore any idea espoused by this person is bad
I prefer the following:

This idea espoused by this person is bad for the following asserted reasons

If the person consistently espouses bad ideas, then this person is a bad person

I think I have worked out why nige calls my arguments ad hominem, The reasoning he uses seems to be similar to the ad hominem fallacy

mikeh made an argument I don't like

an ad hominem argument is a bad argument

therefore mikeh's argument should be called an ad hominem argument, because then everyone will agree with me and dislike it.

Kinda pathetic, really.

I concede only that ad hominem arguments are "Kinda pathetic".

I use the phrase as typically defined in dictionaries.

wiktionary said:

ad hominem ‎(plural ad hominems)

• A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
• A personal attack.

[nige1]

 Elianna, on 2016-December-08, 00:59, said:

We may have already moved on from this topic, but I would point out that saying that something someone said is racist is very different than calling the person racist. I don't think it's productive at all to engage in name-calling, which is what calling someone racist would be.

I agree. (I made that fine distinction, earlier).

 Elianna, on 2016-December-08, 00:59, said:

I do however believe that everyone is susceptible to racist thoughts, and that the main goal of having a fair and equitable society is to recognize those thoughts (usually coming from a place of fear or ignorance) and not act on them. (And acting includes verbal/written actions.)

I also operate from a point of view that very few people actually want to be racist (if someone wants to be, then I really have nothing to say to them), and so pointing out actions that are racist are ways to help people not act in a racist manner.

Another example of times I would say something to someone: when someone says something implying "URBAN schools" or "THOSE children" (the latter not said here, but said to me in other locations) - those are clearly codewords about children of color, and if someone doesn't know that, then they need to be told.

Going back to the common core thread, I talked about my students, and how I teach them, and what I get them to do. Today I witnessed a teacher doing something extremely similar with 9th graders at my school and having them all on task, forming questions that a certain equation could answer. I know that people in that thread expressed shock when I verified that I taught at a "urban" (90+% Latino/African American students - closer to 100% than 90%) that had about 85% of students on free-or-reduced lunch. I think that showed preconceived notions of what students of color could do, and revealed some racist thoughts. I think that calling those people racist would be a complete overbid, as most when I pointed out where I worked seemed to at least be willing to change their worldview which in my mind shows someone with an open mind.

And my goal in life is to reach people who have an open mind (or to open minds, if I can).

Basically, calling someone's actions racists allows that they may learn from them, and can change. Calling someone themselves racist will likely entrench them in whatever they're thinking, and not allow that people can grow.

The trick, though, is that if it's been pointed out to you that an action/thought was racist (like that employers shouldn't hire African Americans due to fear of litigation) and it has been explained why that thought is racist, you don't then decide that you're being called racist and double-down on your statements.

Kaitlyn said that hiring policy is racist.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

wtf? You haven't bothered to read what Kaitlyn wrote?

I've read most of Kaitlyn's posts.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

Yet, without taking that somewhat basic step, you feel able to sit at your computer and write attack after attack on me....on my character?

I don't criticise the character of individual forum-members. That might be construed ad hominem.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks? I'm not sure that you know what that actually means, altho I am sure you can quote a dictionary definition.

I know what the phrase means. For example, calling your opponent stupid, ignorant, racist, and a liar is an ad hominem attack.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

You know, I gained a useful insight into your character in your response to my pointing out that an argument you had made, based on the notion that the genius, Newton, believed in what we all now know to be silly...alchemy. I pointed out that in the context of his times, a belief in alchemy as a topic worth pursuing was eminently reasonable and that it is an error to judge historical figures in the light of current knowledge.
Your response was that you would prefer I not expose your ignorance and that it was patronizing of me to do so...notwithstanding that you were the one advancing the fallacious argument in an effort to make me look unfair.

I endorsed your point. I admitted my ignorance. Again I request that you don't point it out. I suggested another less controversial example: Enoch Powell's notorious "Rivers of Blood" speech.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

You have now further clarified your character. You are happy to write long paragraphs attacking me for comments I made in response to specific posts, yet you can't be bothered to see whether my comments were reasonable? You simply assume that they couldn't be.

I object to personal attacks on opponents in debate, whether or not they are true.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

You suggested that I use personal attacks on witnesses in trials. You presumably don't have any knowledge of what I do for a living. No lawyer should engage in personal attacks on a witness in a courtroom. Such would usually be counterproductive and would always be, imo, unprofessional.

I still believe that some advocates attack the character of hostile witnesses in court. I feel that tactic is inappropriate in a BBO forum.

 mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

Trust me: it is rarely difficult to make an idiot look like an idiot, without calling the person an idiot to their face. You merely point out what they have admitted to doing or thinking or writing, and the conclusion follows as the day follows the night.

Why would anybody want to pillory a forum-member as an idiot? Why not just stick to facts and arguments relevant to the topic?

[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-07, 12:36, said:

I don't read all posts. Please supply an example.

I invite you to read post #2882 and track back the discussion from there. You might also find the post I made on covert racism a useful reference tool and you can perhaps find some examples from Kaitlyn's posts as you read back through the thread.

The point is that the majority of racism is actually not done by those espousing openly racist views but rather is subtly interwoven into societal norms. It takes a long time for these things to change because most do not even recognise that their attitudes and actions are racist until it is pointed out. Awareness is the main point here and that is why the discussion was probably worthwhile even though it was my preference way back at the start of this thread to keep racism out of it. My hope is that Kaitlyn will see herself areas of her lifestyle that tilt in this direction and take steps to change that.

This is not dissimilar from the other discussion about truth. First identify the real facts and basic truth and then come to opinions based on those facts independent of peer pressure and other non-fact-based views that have ingrained themselves. It is not an easy thing to do.

Now let me take Kaitlyn's example of Asian work ethics and use it to show the difference between racial analysis and racism. The former does not actually happen very much in Western politics because of fear of the latter. Let us say that a reputable shows that 90% of Indian parents in the USA (or UK, or wherever) instill in their children a strong desire to achieve higher education whereas only 30% of Pakistani parents in the same region do this. Now it would not be unfair (or racist) to say that based on this one report Indian parents are on average more encouraging of higher education than Pakistani parents. Of course you would need many more studies to reach any firm conclusions. What would not be acceptable would be to hire a graduate from an Indian family over one from a Pakistani family for a job simply because of this general trend, even if it were to be shown conclusively. The Pakistani candidate has already gained their higher education so how can one possibly discriminate against them on that basis?

In general, you can think about differences in cultures based on macro-statistics but you have to treat every individual on their own merits without reference to such general trends.

Finally, an example of how easy it is to get it wrong even for scientists working in the field. A long time ago scientists were trying to work out cultural differences between Aboriginals and Westerners (Whites). They wanted to eliminate linguistic biases so they created an experiment based on the memory game - household objects were placed on a board and removed and the subjects had to remember their position. Not surprisingly (for the scientists) the Aboriginals scored significantly lower and this was written up in peer-review as strong evidence that Europeans were more advanced. Some years later, another group repeated the experiment precisely except that this time they used objects from the Bush - roots, beetles, etc. In this experiment the Aboriginals scored better, indeed at least as much advantage as they were worse in the original experiment. What had really been measured was simply familiarity with the objects and the evidence in fact showed that an Aboriginal brain was just as advanced as that of a European.

So when scientists struggle to identify the facts as they really are sometimes, it is understandable that the general public is also fallible. Almost everyone does some things in their life that are racist in some way. What is not acceptable is continuing to act in a racist way knowing it to be racist. I have no trouble in labelling such a person racist. Time will tell if such a label is appropriate for anyone in BBF.

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-December-08, 07:40, said:

I invite you to read post #2882 and track back the discussion from there. You might also find the post I made on covert racism a useful reference tool and you can perhaps find some examples from Kaitlyn's posts as you read back through the thread.

The point is that the majority of racism is actually not done by those espousing openly racist views but rather is subtly interwoven into societal norms. It takes a long time for these things to change because most do not even recognise that their attitudes and actions are racist until it is pointed out. Awareness is the main point here and that is why the discussion was probably worthwhile even though it was my preference way back at the start of this thread to keep racism out of it. My hope is that Kaitlyn will see herself areas of her lifestyle that tilt in this direction and take steps to change that.

This is not dissimilar from the other discussion about truth. First identify the real facts and basic truth and then come to opinions based on those facts independent of peer pressure and other non-fact-based views that have ingrained themselves. It is not an easy thing to do.

Now let me take your example of Asian work ethics and use it to show the difference between racial analysis and racism. The former does not actually happen very much in Western politics because of fear of the latter.

Good point.

 Zelandakh, on 2016-December-08, 07:40, said:

Let us say that a reputable shows that 90% of Indian parents in the USA (or UK, or wherever) instill in their children a strong desire to achieve higher education whereas only 30% of Pakistani parents in the same region do this. Now it would not be unfair (or racist) to say that based on this one report Indian parents are on average more encouraging of higher education than Pakistani parents. Of course you would need many more studies to reach any firm conclusions. What would not be acceptable would be to hire a graduate from an Indian family over one from a Pakistani family for a job simply because of this general trend, even if it were to be shown conclusively. The Pakistani candidate has already gained their higher education so how can one possibly discriminate against them on that basis?

In general, you can think about differences in cultures based on macro-statistics but you have to treat every individual on their own merits without reference to such general trends.

Finally, an example of how easy it is to get it wrong even for scientists working in the field. A long time ago scientists were trying to work out cultural differences between Aboriginals and Westerners (Whites). They wanted to eliminate linguistic biases so they created an experiment based on the memory game - household objects were placed on a board and removed and the subjects had to remember their position. Not surprisingly (for the scientists) the Aboriginals scored significantly lower and this was written up in peer-review as strong evidence that Europeans were more advanced. Some years later, another group repeated the experiment precisely except that this time they used objects from the Bush - roots, beetles, etc. In this experiment the Aboriginals scored better, indeed at least as much advantage as they were worse in the original experiment. What had really been measured was simply familiarity with the objects and the evidence in fact showed that an Aboriginal brain was just as advanced as that of a European.

So when scientists struggle to identify the facts as they really are sometimes, it is understandable that the general public is also fallible. Almost everyone does some things in their life that are racist in some way. What is not acceptable is continuing to act in a racist way knowing it to be racist. I have no trouble in labelling such a person racist. Time will tell if such a label is appropriate for anyone in BBF.

Thank you Zelandkh. I've read your post #2882 and some previous posts. I appreciate your points about subtle manifestations of racism, the necessity to treat people as individuals, and the difficulty in researching racial characteristics.

You interpret Kaitlyn's stories as racist. Usually she is quoting other people and separately warns readers that some of the stories are apocryphal. It's hard to interpret that as intent do deceive but I agree that some of the stories might have racist connotations. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know Kaityn's unstated attitudes and intentions but, IMO, the main points that Kaitlyn argues aren't racist.

I agree with most of Zelandkh's post but (like Kaitlyn) I often quote a source (as here) to make a point without necessarily endorsing the entire content.

I share Elianna's view that it's ineffective to label a debate opponent as racist; although it's OK to criticise an argument that you deem racist.

[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-08, 04:44, said:

I agree. (I made that fine distinction, earlier).


Kaitlyn said that hiring policy is racist.

Kaitlyn explicitly said that she would, herself, be reluctant to hire blacks for that fear of litigation myth she made up. post #2846

so she didn't just make up a racist myth and attribute it to others: she said that were she a business owner she would be influenced by that racist myth


You tell me. Does espousing an unfounded, racially described, antipathy towards hiring based on skin colour seem non-racist or racist to you? Do you need to look it up in that dictionary of yours? The rest of us (other than Kaitlyn) don't.

Maybe, just maybe you might see that when someone exhibits racist thinking, it is not an ad hominem attack to point that out. Nah...I pointed it out, therefore it was ad hominin. You need to learn latin. 'ad hominem' doesn't translate into 'from mikeh'.

[mikeh]

Here is an insight into what the alt-right fake news can do to ordinary human beings:

http://www.nytimes.c...-news.html?_r=0

Kaitlyn's attitude towards the information sources on which this guy relies is that they are worthy of respect: that we shouldn't discount what they say no matter how strange it may be....after all, clearly some people believe it and who are we to know the answers?

[Kaitlyn S]

 nige1, on 2016-December-08, 07:34, said:

Why would anybody want to pillory a forum-member as an idiot? Why not just stick to facts and arguments relevant to the topic?

I've always wondered that too.