VisorCentral.com - One Year On

VisorCentral.com >> Discussion >> Other Areas of Interest >> Off Topic
One Year On


	Post a New Thread \| Post A Reply

Pages (24): « First ... « 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 » ... Last »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Topic: One Year On Pages (24): « First ... « 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 » ... Last »

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
There is nothing logical in assuming you know a person's opinion on the middle east simply because of their ethnicity, especially when your bases for thinking you know the population is dubious.

Hm... We settled this. I say yes (at a level better than chance) and you say no (because it cannot be 100%). Why bring it up again?

10-17-2002 10:46 PM

John Nowak
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

KRamsauer, do you really think there is no ethical difference between applying heuristics to a morally neutral proposition (Is Bill taller than Frances?) and using prejudice and stereotypes to ascribe beliefs to people?

10-17-2002 10:48 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Are you calling my wife fat? I'm not married and if I were, it would be completely irrelevent. Heck, it's still irrelevent. Gotta love two different spellings of a word in two sentences.

How is it irrelevant? You said you prefer to go with numbers and science and ignore gut answers.

10-17-2002 10:51 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Hm... We settled this. I say yes (at a level better than chance) and you say no (because it cannot be 100%). Why bring it up again?

Because you've still missed the point.

10-17-2002 10:52 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
KRamsauer, do you really think there is no ethical difference between applying heuristics to a morally neutral proposition (Is Bill taller than Frances?) and using prejudice and stereotypes to ascribe beliefs to people?

When I see someone praying in Church, I feel find thinking "oh, he's Christian." I am mature enough to realize that such a judgement in no way ascribes to them anything positive or negative. Perhaps some people cannot seperate judgements of religion/race/sex from value judgements, but I sure as heck can.
So to answer your question, I'd say "it depends." Can you adequately seperate knowledge of said traits from judgement? If not, you're best off ignoring it. If you can seperate the two, you should not feel bad knowing someone is Christian, Hindu, Jewish, etc....
I guess it comes down to seperating knowledge from feelings. If we did more of that, our society would be better off.
So in the end I guess I'd change your question. You imply beliefs is something that isn't morally neutral. I'd argue it is. What you believe is what you believe and is no more grounds for discrimination and preferential treatment than the day of the week on which you were born.

10-17-2002 10:53 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
How is it irrelevant? You said you prefer to go with numbers and science and ignore gut answers.

It's irrelevant because the aim of such an answer is to please your wife, not to tell the truth. In a framework such as the three-doors setup, your aim is not to make people happy but to win stuff.

10-17-2002 10:54 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Because you've still missed the point.

Perhaps, but it appears it's a point not worth recognizing.

10-17-2002 10:54 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
KRamsauer, do you really think there is no ethical difference between applying heuristics to a morally neutral proposition (Is Bill taller than Frances?) and using prejudice and stereotypes to ascribe beliefs to people?

Going by the conversation so far, it would seem the affirmative, but I'm obviously not paying close enough attention to my statements, since you managed to succinctly say more in that sentence than I think I've said all day.

10-17-2002 10:54 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
It's irrelevant because the aim of such an answer is to please your wife, not to tell the truth.

And you've obviously never been married if you think pleasing your wife isn't winning stuff.

quote:
In a framework such as the three-doors setup, your aim is not to make people happy but to win stuff.

Except that the three door scenario is not nor ever has been real.

10-17-2002 10:57 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Going by the conversation so far, it would seem the affirmative, but I'm obviously not paying close enough attention to my statements, since you managed to succinctly say more in that sentence than I think I've said all day.

Thanks for answering for me. If I ever need a lawyer, I'll call you.

So while I was arguing the logical validity of said judgements you were arguing for their ethical validity? Wow, what a waste of bits and bytes.

10-17-2002 10:58 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
And you've obviously never been married if you think pleasing your wife isn't winning stuff.

And what would that be, Uncie Toby? ;-) Actually, I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks.

10-17-2002 10:59 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Thanks for answering for me. If I ever need a lawyer, I'll call you.

I wouldn't take the case, but your answer seems to have confirmed it.

quote:
So while I was arguing the logical validity of said judgements you were arguing for their ethical validity? Wow, what a waste of bits and bytes.

No, you're still being obtuse. I thought it was intentional at first, but obviously not.

10-17-2002 11:04 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
No, you're still being obtuse. I thought it was intentional at first, but obviously not.

I assure you I'm being sincere.

10-17-2002 11:12 PM

John Nowak
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

So in the end I guess I'd change your question. You imply beliefs is something that isn't morally neutral. I'd argue it is. What you believe is what you believe and is no more grounds for discrimination and preferential treatment than the day of the week on which you were born.

I do not think that the belief that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" is morally equal to the belief that "The Jew is a disease in society." (And no, I do not wish to imply that you agree or disagree with either of those two statements. They were chosen strictly because they are diametrically opposed.)

There is nothing in the world less morally neutral than beliefs. I guess I'm funny that way.

10-17-2002 11:17 PM

John Nowak
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Going by the conversation so far, it would seem the affirmative, but I'm obviously not paying close enough attention to my statements, since you managed to succinctly say more in that sentence than I think I've said all day.

Nah, you've been doing fine; I just got lucky.

10-17-2002 11:18 PM

John Nowak
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

When I see someone praying in Church, I feel find thinking "oh, he's Christian."

If you're wrong in that situation, then you've committed a minor social gaffe. If you assume you know what that person's opinion is based on that, you're stereotyping.

"Actually, I'm Jewish. I wasn't praying -- I was waiting here for a friend and dozed off with my head resting on my hands. Understandable mistake."
"Oh, sorry about that, I meant no disrespect. Since you're Jewish, I guess you support the invasion of Iraq?"
"No, I don't -- and the fact you thought I did shows you're prejudiced."

Which by definition, it does. As compared to:

"Most of the Jews I happen to know support the invasion of Iraq. What is your opinion?"

which both acknowledges the statistical side and treats him like an individual.

10-17-2002 11:31 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

There is nothing in the world less morally neutral than beliefs. I guess I'm funny that way.

Hm.... I think my use of "beliefs" in terms of religion is ambiguous. I am definitely not saying believing Jews are a disease is a morally neutral belief. However, Judaism is morally neutral to me. Knowing someone is Jewish (or any other religion) tells me nothing about the moral worth of that person. That's perhaps a better formulation.

10-17-2002 11:34 PM

KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

If you're wrong in that situation, then you've committed a minor social gaffe. If you assume you know what that person's opinion is based on that, you're stereotyping.

"Actually, I'm Jewish. I wasn't praying -- I was waiting here for a friend and dozed off with my head resting on my hands. Understandable mistake."
"Oh, sorry about that, I meant no disrespect. Since you're Jewish, I guess you support the invasion of Iraq?"
"No, I don't -- and the fact you thought I did shows you're prejudiced."

Which by definition, it does. As compared to:

"Most of the Jews I happen to know support the invasion of Iraq. What is your opinion?"

which both acknowledges the statistical side and treats him like an individual.

The last statement you made is perfect, and what I would most likely use (it demonstrates what I've said all along, that though you don't know their opinions, you are aware of larger trends). I never said I would label someone as wanting war simply because of their religion, but I don't feel bad for having that thought cross my mind. It isn't degrading the person (and therefore I take issue with calling it prejudice because I am not judging the person, merely assessing the likely presence of an auxillary tendency), and is easily overturned by just a shred of evidence (So, what do you think about Iraq?).

10-17-2002 11:45 PM

John Nowak
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Hm.... I think my use of "beliefs" in terms of religion is ambiguous. I am definitely not saying believing Jews are a disease is a morally neutral belief. However, Judaism is morally neutral to me. Knowing someone is Jewish (or any other religion) tells me nothing about the moral worth of that person. That's perhaps a better formulation.

We were thinking of different types of beliefs. Some beliefs are morally neutral (IMHO religion, condiment preference) and others aren't. The word's too broad. No biggie.

10-18-2002 12:18 AM

John Nowak
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
The last statement you made is perfect, and what I would most likely use ... I never said I would label someone as wanting war simply because of their religion, but I don't feel bad for having that thought cross my mind.

Okay. I got a different impression from the rest of the thread -- glad to hear I was mistaken.

10-18-2002 12:21 AM

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (24): « First ... « 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 » ... Last »

Last Thread Next Thread

[

Show a Printable Version |

Email This Page to Someone! |

Receive updates to this thread ]

Forum Jump: