Visionary Social Anatomy

[InfiniteNow]

I think the "Broad case" misunderstanding is on your part, and not mine.

I never mentioned skin color or religion when talking about Illegal Immigration.

Maybe I have a thing against Muslims, but they have a thing against America.

:doh: Please see post #1, this thread.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I don't pretend to love every mutherfukker on the planet!

 

Aside:

 

Is there a filter that catches profanity? Because I've noticed that you always misspell that word...

 

On Topic:

 

Are you sure that all Muslims ("they" as you put it) have a "thing against America?" Do you really have a "thing" against all Muslims?

 

Any other large group you have a "thing" against? That's kinda the point - that you don't really know most people, and that judging them according to ascribed characteristics of whatever group you choose to classify them into (even if 75% of all Muslims hate America, that leaves several hundreds of millions who don't) may be convenient but is inaccurate and detrimental.

 

The broader the brush, the more details get painted over.... now who lives in the details? God or the Devil?

 

TFS

[PS I'm not talking about immigration. We're both entitled to our opinions on that one, okay? You said "I have a thing against Muslims." Do you prejudge people by their membership in a certain group? Most people do. I do. Is that okay? Can we behave otherwise?]

[TheFaithfulStone]

And did I say Muslims ?

Guess what?

They think you're an Infadel at best, worthy of dying at the leas

 

You ascribe to all Muslims ('they') thoughts which they may or may not have - by virtue of their membership in the group "Muslim."

 

I know quite a few Muslims. Not one of them thinks that I should die. I'm not aware that any of them think I'm an 'infidel.'

 

TFS

[Racoon]

You ascribe to all Muslims ('they') thoughts which they may or may not have - by virtue of their membership in the group "Muslim."

 

I know quite a few Muslims. Not one of them thinks that I should die. I'm not aware that any of them think I'm an 'infidel.'

 

TFS

 

There you go saying "all" again.

 

And those Muslims wouldn't mind you dying either you infadel! :doh:

 

Get back to the Legal and Illegal if you would..

[TheFaithfulStone]

Get back to the Legal and Illegal if you would..

 

I wasn't really talking about that. Perhaps that's why you're so upset?

 

And those Muslims wouldn't mind you dying either you infadel!

 

Which Muslims is that?

 

TFS

[Racoon]

Really?

 

Thank you.

 

The most under-used words in the English language are

 

*Please

*thank you

*You're welcome

[freeztar]

Thank you.

 

The most under-used words in the English language are

 

*Please

*thank you

*You're welcome

 

Thank you for responding. Please note that my question refers to post #30. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Because I can have friendly relationships with people at work? :shrug: The sarcasm is unnecessary Racoon.

 

How well do we get along? They are work friends. Currently, I only work with one Muslim on a regular basis. I have supervised two in the past, and have had passing work relationships with many more. I get along with them fine. I ask him how his kids are. He says fine. I follow the Cubs - he follows the Cardinals - we have a friendly rivalry going here. Normally he's winning. ;)

 

How do they accept my beliefs? I have never been proselytized by my Islamic co-workers. The individual whose boss I was was married, even though he was only 21, and had left her in .. Bahrain? I found that weird. He explained to me that he thought it was weird that Americans marry for 'love.' He said to me - "Having sex is the stupidest possible reason to get married," I agreed with him, but told him we probably had different outcomes in mind when we said that. He agreed and laughed about it. He told me living in America made him a better Muslim because it taught him to live with a bunch of different kinds of people.

 

I used to work with a guy who was Nation of Islam. (You can argue he doesn't count if you like...) He told me I should join because of all the good work they did. I told him I didn't like Louis Farrakhan very much. He said - "Man, I don't think ANYBODY likes him."

 

I don't know Racoon.. They treat me with respect. I treat them with respect. Everybody gets along. We don't agree on everything. We find out we have more in common that not. People are people....

 

Simple as that.

 

TFS

[Racoon]

M'Kay..

Its all good then.

People are People..

 

But guess WTF!??

People don't really get along do they?? You just proved my point...

;)

 

:hihi:

You can't get everyone in your office to agree, what makes you think the worlds populations are going to agree?? :doh::shrug:

 

The Muslims will get along with you just fine.

Just realize in the back of their mind that they think you're an Infadel. :D

[TheFaithfulStone]

But guess WTF!??

People don't really get along do they?? You just proved my point...

 

 

 

You can't get everyone in your office to agree, what makes you think the worlds populations are going to agree??

 

You're right Racoon - not everybody is going to agree all the time. I concur 100%. I don't agree with all the people in my office. I REALLY don't agree with the NOI guy. But I manage not to call him names, or draw up when he gets close, or anything else impolite. I can work with him. I'm not rude. We get along, even though we don't agree.

 

 

Just realize in the back of their mind that they think you're an Infadel.

 

Why do you think this is the case? If you are using "infadel [sic]" to mean "religiously wrong," then yeah, probably. But that's a far cry from "want to destroy" and "usurp freedoms." I think Baptists are religiously wrong, but that doesn't mean I want bad things to happen to my Baptists friends... Do you think all of my Muslim colleagues secretly want to kill me?

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

I am closing this thread for 24 hours.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

I am closing this thread for 24 hours.

 

Bill

24 hours later... I have taken the liberty of pruning from this thread the posts that strayed away from the main point of discussion. I hope that it can get back on track, I find the topic very interesting and I am planning on jumping in at some point.

 

Bill

[TZK]

If I see a bunch of statistics on african americans and caucasians... and then I must consider 2 potential employees and the only information I have is their race, then I would choose the race that had better statistics.

 

However that would be stupid because it is easy and valuable to obtain more information than that. I might then evaluate their grades, or the way they dress themselves etc.

 

If I could I would call previous employers and ask them how the person behaves at work, but that is not all powerful since the person I talk to could be useless and identify with useless people.

 

Anyways my point is race is a attribute that has some correlation with valuable or undesirable traits. Only a fool ignores these correlations when they are the best information you have to go on. You shouldn't have to pay twice as much to be politically correct.

 

But other attributes have better correlations than just race. To use a attribute like race when there are attributes with stronger correlations to evaluate is wrong. You might see an old school deep south redneck say that an african american with a 4.0 gpa in school is stupid because he isn't white, and in my opinion that is one kind of racism.

 

 

There is one other kind too I think, that exists more often in modern society. Your coworker talks about the movie the color purple, and you have never seen it because it only shows on Black entertainment television which you don't watch. Because of this you are less friendly towards one another. The next day this person's friend comes in late, and so this person says "Oh the traffic must have been really bad today I think I heard there was a wreck or something". A week later you come in late, and the same person says about you "That guy thinks everyone is on his time, he couldn't care less about this job they should just fire him". All because you couldn't relate to them and their race based culture.

 

This second kind can not be eliminated by directly attacking racism. Instead we must evolve socially to the point that we are more objective towards people that are not our friends. IE you must consider that someone has a reason for the things they do, and not lash out of them with convaluted arguments for fear that they do not like you.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Anyways my point is race is a attribute that has some correlation with valuable or undesirable traits. Only a fool ignores these correlations when they are the best information you have to go on. You shouldn't have to pay twice as much to be politically correct.

 

No it isn't.

 

Race is a typology which is socially constructed by the dominant group. This means that people who are in charge look around and find out what they have in common. Then they divide other people into two kinds of people - groups that ARE like them, and people that ARE NOT like them.

 

After they've done this this, they start comparing the two groups and looking for differences and similarities. They are going to find some. There is really no telling what they will find, but there will be SOME differences which are correlated to the division. However - they have already decided what the independent variable should be.

 

Then, hopefully (for them), they find that some attribute they value is associated with people like them (shocking, right?) and that some attribute they don't like is associated with people not like them. They say that this difference in attributes MUST be attributable to the variable that they already decided the difference was attributable too.

 

In other words the entire question of race is a correlation/causation fallacy based on a faulty assumption and an affirmed consequent. That's a lot of bad thinking to base any decision on.

 

TFS

[Victor_Wrath]

This, like many concepts of modern philosophy, seems to me like a really complex way of stating an oversimplified idea.

 

However, some of its ideas strike a cord with something I have come to believe, which might have been what IN was getting at.

 

The concept of individuality and that of clan and culture, is like all knowledge, based upon arbitrary concepts. By that I mean that at some point, imaginary lines are drawn, and those thing which fall inside of and outside of those lines are defined only by what there differences, never by what they have in common. You are not me, and I am not you, and they are not us, and we are not them… and so on.

 

In reality, change does not occur instantaneously, and in all things are commonalities and parts of all other things. Hard boarders between individual and group identities are only concepts, they are not real. The ONLY way that conflict among arbitrarily created groups can EVER end is if we stop recognizing only our differences, and stop using these imaginary boundaries to separate ourselves from one another, and our communities from other communities.

 

I maybe an idealist, but I’m also a realist. I fully realize how unlikely that is to ever happen, but I also recognize that many of the things we as human beings have achieved are nearly as equally unlikely, in both great and terrible strides. So, while its nearly an impossible goal, I think it’s a noble thing to strive for.

 

Victor Wrath

____________________________________

 

-To see the unseen

-To know the unknown

-To find the unfound

 

-All absolutes are lies.

[TheFaithfulStone]

-All absolutes are lies.

 

Even that one?

 

TFS

[Victor_Wrath]

Even that one? ;)

 

TFS

 

Yes, even that one. Choas is the nature of existance, reality is paradoxal.