Intoscience

Ok I see your point, our arguments are aligning a little now. I'm a firm believer in people paying theirs dues, so no argument there. However, I was interpreting your argument as (based on your analogy), a bully is stealing your child's lunch money and because the said bully is from a specific group all the people in that group must be bullies so they should all be punished and pay for the bully's crime. . I'm always confused by your comments. I just see your argument as, your privilege is a result of crimes committed by your ancestors, therefore you should pay for those crimes. If this is your point then all modern people should pay for their ancestor's crimes then? So if we all pay who do we pay? I'm saying rather than tit for tat, lets just learn from our ancestor's mistakes and just stop. This may seem unfair, and maybe it is but when do you draw then line? Yet the constitution built by the bullies and oppressors is held in such high esteem in the US even today. Those people are long gone, dead and buried.

Ah... I see where you are going with this. You are basically saying I'm the beneficiary of the crimes of my forefathers. So now I should payback my gain. Interesting approach, one could apply this logic to all the activities of all our ancestors including invasions and conquering of countries etc... how much do you pay and where do you stop? Happy to do that if I know about and directly understand the value of (if any) my gain from the crime. Though one could argue that my payment is losing my family member to the jail he is sent to, or the embarrassment of, or stigma of, or the prejudice against me for being related to a criminal...

This is what I'm arguing, and though I see the point made by Phi and other members, I don't agree that affirmative action that goes beyond equal opportunity will solve long term issues. It will just appease one group and then cause disdain for another. At some point the only way to achieve this is by stopping and saying enough is enough, lets stop this pinball game and smooth it out. Someone somewhere will have suffered more than others, there's no way around it. But, we can stop now so that now and future generations suffer no more and that all are treated equal. Tit for tat is not an affirmative action, its a game of revenge that never really results in success. I don't disagree, though I would say its the government system that presides not the people who originally developed it. The current government should recognise and amend mistakes by changing the system accordingly. But changes should be made to smooth out the line. Actually, then we agree because this is what I'm arguing. I'm happy to pay compensation, but that payment should come at a cost to all not to one specific group. Though predominantly in western culture it was white people oppressing and slaving black people, it was not exclusive to. History shows many cultures in many countries, have conducted some sort of oppression, slavery and worse. All of modern society, all members of this society should pay the compensation to all those that have suffered in the past. Then all systems, across all cultures, should have a policy of equal opportunity no more no less. Also, from experience (my partner's family who are black, and by the way she totally agrees on this), in the society which we live, the most racial people tend to be black people. All of the racial tension between her family and mine originates from her family. This embarrasses her and upsets her deeply. Lets just stop and reset.

Sorry but that is a crock of crap. Your argument is that modern generations should pay back with interest, for past generation's mistakes/wrong doings. My argument is that modern generations should learn from those mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated. You are asking me to pay for a crime that my forefathers may have committed. Are you saying that all modern Germans should pay for the Nazi crimes committed during world war 2? Because this is how it sounds to me. This attitude sounds all rather vengeful, I wonder if this is the driving factor? You are focussing on one group that were persecuted and oppressed, which was disgraceful and should never be repeated, and I agree that some pay back is due. But history shows that this activity has been prevailing in many cultures over thousands of years across the world. Lets just stop, stop singling people or groups out. Skin colour, race, religion, gender personal preferences... aside, lets just provide equal opportunity for all people. Fine if the thief is the one doing the crime, lock him up and make him pay, whatever. But you are forcing his family, worse his community to pay for his crime. Nothing stopping asking the community to make a donation towards the victims, hell most would be happy to I'm sure. But forcing them to serve his sentence, reeks of revenge not a solution.

Mistakes should be corrected no one is arguing this. We are just questioning the methodology. It seems that in some aspects its like fighting fire with fire. I don't disagree with any of this, my question is around the methodology to correct the systems. The band aid you mentioned earlier is when the systems are made bias towards the disadvantage groups by disadvantaging the successful groups. This seems like a hypocritical tactic, that's all.

So each pirate has to be happy and content with their own lot, but also happy that each other member has been treated equally fairly?

Ah, a more simple approach needed then. A better trick would be a way in which each perceives they themselves have the best share.

Is your preference prejudice or have racial implications? The argument that I have witnessed by some people is that, even though your intent is not in any way this way, just the action of preferring one colour over another makes it so.

I'm not sure if there is one. I think there are 2 issues, first issue is, is there a system that produces definitive equal shares? The second issue is, does that system, even that which is definitive in quantity satisfy the perception of each and every pirate? Each pirate has to agree on the value of each item and that the value should match on each and every pick. Then each round should produce an equal quantity of items. Can this be done?

Agreed, IQ tests are designed to be a general consensus on a persons overall ability to process information (in short). Some people are just exceptional in one particular area and may then score lower in other areas, giving a lower overall score. Not really that useful when describing a persons' "genius" levels. I remember a college friend of mine who scored dreadfully on IQ tests but was an absolute whizz at solving murder mystery type problems. He would have made an excellent police detective! Sadly he passed away before he had chance to persue a career.

I prefer a white board over a black one. I can use multiple coloured pens on a whiteboard and you don't get that awful screeching noise whilst writing on one.

I think its an inevitable part of human evolution. The sensible and most likely approach would be slow integration. A.I should be an asset rather than a threat, both economically and socially. We have witnessed in our life times changes through technology, the introduction of the internet being one major example. then you can look at robots in manufacturing and other industries. The goal should be to free the world of poverty, reduce sickness and improve wellbeing for all. Reality, most likely, someone (maybe even A.I) will just get stinking rich/powerful and the poor will continue to be poor. I would support the following as priority Basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter Reduction in diseases and ill health Utilities such as electricity, water, internet, etc All levels of education (as much as a person wants to learn

This is where things get muddled Rather than attempting to find a fair solution, by fair I'm referring to a solution which accommodates all, allowing an equal opportunity. Some subsets get shoe horned into categories which then in turn discriminates against others within that category. This is why the Para athletic events works, people at a physical disadvantage are pitted against each other rather than against people who do not share the same disadvantages. But the attitude is shoe horn the small subset into a category that they are then going on to dominate and everyone else (the vast majority) should suck it up. This is damaging to all parties involved, all it does is promote further un-acceptance and separative attitudes, rather than encourage equality and acceptance. I for one would much rather see subset categories to allow people of similar calibre to compete against each other than watch one group dominate all. The attitude that its about the taking part that counts not the winning, well that's a cop out. What is the point of "competition" if there is no goal to aim for? Competition is healthy, in most it promotes progress. We as humans have the advantage that we have the intelligence to subset competition to make it an equal playing field so all can participate, all have the chance of being winners. But don't you see that the persecution is encouraged more so from allowing the "small subset" a clear advantage over their fellow competitors? Don't you think that these people feel less valued when they are singled out for all the wrong reasons? I want to encourage people to be able to be who they want to be without the fear of persecution. Anyhow, this thread is going off track now, so I'll leave it at that.

Transgender, especially in women's athletics, as one example though. There is another thread on that topic already heavily debated. Anything taken to extremes, either way, is going to present issues, no matter what subject we discuss. Would you not agree that in general solving issues tends to come from the middle grounds, where things can be more easily balanced?

Glad to hear you are still around, I for one found the vast majority of your arguments sound and logical. And if I ever had a disagreement at any point (can't think of any but I'm sure I probably did) I still respect you. Also the fact that you had been missed already is testament to the value you hold as a member of this forum! Keep posting, the forum needs you

What gives you this impression? Science (or at least some areas of it) can be considered underfunded compared to other organisations/fields of study, yet the benefits from scientific discoveries can be immense. Scientists don't get paid that well unless happen to find stardom through popular exposure such as TV etc... who are a tiny portion of the scientific community. If your discovery is so sensational then why not publish a paper for peer review, then maybe if verified you can make millions of bucks for your own ideas, what is stopping you?

I sense an extreme amount of bitterness and "contempt" towards the scientific community. Science uses models that can be tested and independently verified as it's standard. Until a better model is discovered and verified, yielding more accurate predictions to explain observation, then there is no reason to discount the original model. So what you learn in study is those "standard" models. You then are more than encouraged to seek out better models, nobody in the modern scientific community is going to oppose this approach. However any new model will face extreme scrutiny, and why shouldn't it? If it works and holds then this is the verification that is needed for it to then be accepted as the "new" standard model. At which point this will be taught to the next generation of students. This is how progress works, start with solid foundations and build on them. Not all discoveries are sensational, some take years of study, bits at a time. A tip: To enable you to refute an argument, you need to learn as much information as you can. This includes that which you may believe to be intuitively false. But intuition can cloud your judgement, especially when dealing with science, things aren't always the way you imagine they should be. So go and study, gain an understanding of that which you are claiming is false, you never know you may come back with something sensational, or you may learn something. At least you may get a different perspective and gain a little respect for science.

Ok, fair enough, I mis-interpreted the context, apologies Fair enough, Again, my mis-interpretation, I think we have established that this is not what it is about I think, though tongue in cheek, J.C in this instance makes a valid point. This is where we may find the "extreme" side of woke creating more issues than it solves.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are insinuating with your comment? My partner is a black lady, her life matters very much to me, not because of the colour of her skin though. I'm saying all people from all cultures may have inherent racial tendencies learnt from their social environment, both intended and unintended. We can all agree that racism can be eradicated through social education, we can all do better. Prejudice in any form is not the answer. I'm learning to phrase things better, consider my use of terms and language, so that it becomes more acceptable across a more diverse range of cultures and groups. But I still fall foul, and still make mistakes. I still mis-understand or even don't understand why something I say may be offensive, I'm still scrubbing out the stains.

For me it would depend on the situation, I agree I would save my child before my dog. But honestly, I'm not sure I'd save every human over my dog in all situations. It may seem absurd to some, but I don't place human life, in all situations, at the top of the hierarchy. There you go, singling out one group from others. Don't you think all people have racial tendencies dependent on their social upbringing? Just for the record, I'm not a white person living in the USA so I wouldn't be able to comment on that. That's a bold assumption, I'm sure all people interact with racist people each and every day. Though I do agree that a little effort in consideration towards others may go a long way.

+1

Just a side note: My dog is part of my family and loved as any person would love a child. My dog also loves each of his family (us). I would treat my dog better than I would treat some of the greedy, selfish, self-centered, attention seeking people often found in modern society. +1 Though branding a person, racist because they used a term (out of years of habit) without context, that is a little sensitive in modern society, does not make them evil either. A little education in decorum and respect is all it takes, most people (those that do care) will accept this and try to change the terms they use. I find myself most days doing this, I have learned to stop and think what terms I should be using during discussions, but sometimes I still slip up out of habit. I was glad when white boards were introduced and black boards were no longer used! Not because I'm racist, but because the sound of chalk squeaking against the black board I found totally unbearable.

And some of the kindest, though those that are kind tend to be very respectful, and tend not to preach onto others their own beliefs.