Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon
But, do you love L.A.?

---

Nope. It's not at all my thing. Despite all of its flaws, I much prefer La. Although, I could consider several other southwestern states movable.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
No, I'm not Randy Newman.[B]*sigh*

---

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

Summary

Toby, I dont' think you understand my point. What I'm saying is that for the vast number of morally neutral qualities (religion, age, sex, religion, etc), there is no harm done in assuming someone fits one description before we have 100% proof. The only reason you should never make such predictions is when it has a material effect on that person or your impressions of that person. Because I have never been given a good reason to favor one sex/religion/race/etc. over another those traits are, in my mind, in the same category of hair color/shoe size/ birthday/etc that simply have no bearing on anything. I see those people as people and no combination of said traits can change that. I dont' assume someone is a racist/sexist/murderer/etc absent proof because those do indeed carry moral weight to me. If you cannot look at someone's religion and avoid forming a value conclusion about that person, by all means keep *sigh*ing and ignore said traits. That is the moral thing for you to do.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
having spoken to someone on the phoen with a deep voice, assuming they are a man does harm to that person

---

This example is not AT ALL what the original discussion was about.

We were talking about ASSUMING to know a POLITICAL POSITION of a person based solely on their religion/ethnicity.

Lord, I have GOT to get some work done...

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

This example is not AT ALL what the original discussion was about.

We were talking about ASSUMING to know a POLITICAL POSITION of a person based solely on their religion/ethnicity.

Lord, I have GOT to get some work done...

---

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

A little story. At one point, people were valued on their religion. This was wrong. So we were told to ignore religion because such beliefs were so deeply ingrained that we couldn't operate fairly without ignoring religion. Now, however, there are people not raised in such an environment and therefore don't have such prejudices ingrained in them. Because of this, they needn't ignore religion because recognizing it won't put someone at a disadvantage. If you have prejudices ingrained in you, the moral thing to do is indeed ignore religion.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Reading the next sentence should have clarified it, but I meant "If you are jerk, I will discriminate against you, as we all do."

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
You are definitely closed to reason though, [...]

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
If you can explain why, having spoken to someone on the phoen with a deep voice, assuming they are a man does harm to that person, I'll be amazed. If in your mind that qualifies as prejudice, I feel sorry for you because that implies you see women as more important than men.

---

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Here's a test. There are two people who are exactly the same in every respect. One wants war in Iraq, one doesn't. Do you like either one of them more? If so, then you would be wrong in predicting political position. I, however, see political position as not at all bearing on someone's worth or how much I like them.

---

Um, is one of them short?

Gee, KRamsauer, you would have us believe that you are the most non-judgmental person on the face of the earth. And maybe you are...

To answer your test: No, that one factor in and of itself would not make me more or less inclined to like person A or person B. But if I assume, based on what you call neutral factors, that person A is in favor of war and person B is against, person A might still get offended that I assumed he was in favor of war.

And that is my point this whole time. It's not a question of, gee, am I a good enough non-discriminatory person that I can make assumptions about others'. It's a question of, gee, if I make (out-loud or on-line) assumptions about person A and I am wrong, will that be offensive to them.

Maybe you are as non-prejudiced as you say, but statistically speaking (!) you are probably in the minority. I think everyone has prejudice against others, although not necessarily for gender/race/creed/religion/etc.

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

quote:

---

What I'm sure of is that you don't have a clue to what I understand. Using a sufficiently-sized random sample from a given population, it is perfectly valid to draw conclusions about that population _as_a_whole_. That was never in debate, and if you thought it was, then I can't fathom why.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

Re: Summary

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Toby, I dont' think you understand my point.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

Um, is one of them short?

Gee, KRamsauer, you would have us believe that you are the most non-judgmental person on the face of the earth. And maybe you are...

And that is my point this whole time. It's not a question of, gee, am I a good enough non-discriminatory person that I can make assumptions about others'. It's a question of, gee, if I make (out-loud or on-line) assumptions about person A and I am wrong, will that be offensive to them.

Maybe you are as non-prejudiced as you say, but statistically speaking (!) you are probably in the minority. I think everyone has prejudice against others, although not necessarily for gender/race/creed/religion/etc.

---

You're right, I'm probably in the minority. That doesn't mean that it is a very powerful and fair way to think. The more people realize that all this stuff simply doesn't matter the better we will all be. As soon as we realize all this doesn't matter will we rob the bigots of the world of their major power: the nagging belief that is perpetuated through the generations that perhaps they're on to something. They're not, and we all need to realize it.

I think this goes back to something someone (perhaps you?) said earlier. It is best to weight the pros and cons of anything, including telling someone you made an assumption about them. In 9 out of 10 cases that is dumb (I guess part of the 10% of smart instances is predicting what someone wants for their birthday), and frankly there is no benefit in making such a prediction. So in external relations such moves would probably hurt someone more often than it helps them. But, that being said, mental excersizes with morally neutral conditions to me do no harm, and I'm open to evidence that they do.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
mental excersizes with morally neutral conditions to me do no harm, and I'm open to evidence that they do.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

What if J. Happel was hurt and/or offended by your assumption that Jewish people automatically favor war against Iraq?

(BTW, I don't know if he was, I certainly hope he was not, but am trying to get a good example for KR.)

---

The way around that is I don't, the first time I see him, dance around singing "you want war with Iraq, lallalalalalalalala." I ask him, just like I would any other person.
If he offended by the notion that someone is under the impression that more Jewish people favor war than don't, I think he needs to rethink his views. Just like someone from Green Bay who is offended that people assume he is a Packers fan and not a Giants fan, it's just one of those things that shouldn't get to you. Remember, this is not a morally charged debate (which it would be if someone were to for some reason believe Jews are a war-loving people). Remember, in my framework, wanting war against Iraq is no more offensive than prefering orange M&Ms.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
If he offended by the notion that someone is under the impression that more Jewish people favor war than don't, I think he needs to rethink his views.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
The way around that is I don't, the first time I see him, dance around singing "you want war with Iraq, lallalalalalalalala." I ask him, just like I would any other person.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

No, in this case, he would be offended by the fact that you assumed HE favored war with Iraq.


Hardly "just like" war with Iraq at all


You can hardly be in a position to determine what should get to other people


Maybe not **to you**. You can't judge what other people get all morally-charged-up about.


I find your reference to orange M&M's offensive b/c too many of them make me look fat in my jeans. (Just ask my husband.)

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Why do you need to ask if you've got the inferential statistics?[B]Or maybe you need to cite the survey? Please. Just humor us.[B]You are seriously twisted if you think that is a sensible comparison.[B]No, war is never a morally charged debate. Excuse me while I spit liquid all over my monitor.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
You mayconsider it be a morally charged issue but I don't. I'm sorry you look down on someone because of their view on this issue. That must cause a lot of problems.

---