|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:10 pm
Risen. Angel. ninja Why is it that when I post something...no one quotes it but every other post is quoted. -Le sigh.- Either...I've got a good point...or I'm being egnored. You had a good point. Usually I only quote if people are being moronic or if I need to talk to them specifically
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:19 pm
tenshi_kurai_86_2005 Risen. Angel. ninja Why is it that when I post something...no one quotes it but every other post is quoted. -Le sigh.- Either...I've got a good point...or I'm being egnored. You had a good point. Usually I only quote if people are being moronic or if I need to talk to them specifically Yay. >w< I had a good point! I noticed thats what most quotes are of though...moronic posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:30 pm
Risen. Angel. What makes a person a person is the fact that they are living and breathing. I very much dislike, in fact, you could say I rather loathe, the Simple Corrospondence Theory of Truth. And no, living and breathing are not what makes a person a person. What makes a person a person, is one who is actually "living," not one who is merely existing/not existing. Quote: I see no point in fretting over someone's skin tone. Its like fretting over ice cream. So many diffrent colors, not one is better than the other. They are all cold and used to cool you off in the summer time. They are all tasty to someone, and people enjoy it (most people.). People are all diffrent colors. They can be cold at times, or warm hearted at others...they are always loved by at least someone, and most people enjoy their company. So...why is skin tone a bad thing again? Beats me. Why should I like something or be respectful of something I don't like, simply because another person may like that thing? Quote: It seems...it seems its the adults that always have that problem now. The teenagers are over it, they don't care about color. Its the adults that have the issue. I can understand the grandparents, for they lived in the time period of racism at its worst, and things are hard to change when you've lived through it...but the parents of us teens today? Thats where I lay confused. One, never come to my area of the woods. Sadly, were I live a lot of people are racist; they'll treat others respectfully, but, in their hearts, they are racist. Secondly, violence breeds violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:43 pm
chaoticpuppet Risen. Angel. What makes a person a person is the fact that they are living and breathing. I very much dislike, in fact, you could say I rather loathe, the Simple Corrospondence Theory of Truth. And no, living and breathing are not what makes a person a person. What makes a person a person, is one who is actually "living," not one who is merely existing/not existing. ...Got me...Quote: Color should not and should have , ever been an issue in the human society. Sorry, can't help it. Couldn't help what? You just made not one bit of sense right there. What? Was the color of skin suppose to be a big deal about how intelligent a person is, or if they are worth being higher than a slave or master? Besides the fact it has some help with UV rays...Quote: I see no point in fretting over someone's skin tone. Its like fretting over ice cream. So many diffrent colors, not one is better than the other. They are all cold and used to cool you off in the summer time. They are all tasty to someone, and people enjoy it (most people.). People are all diffrent colors. They can be cold at times, or warm hearted at others...they are always loved by at least someone, and most people enjoy their company. So...why is skin tone a bad thing again? Beats me. Why should I like something or be respectful of something I don't like, simply because another person may like that thing? You don't have to like the person or respect them...but does it give you the right to hang them and let their decaying body lay in plain sight of their family and friends to see?Quote: It seems...it seems its the adults that always have that problem now. The teenagers are over it, they don't care about color. Its the adults that have the issue. I can understand the grandparents, for they lived in the time period of racism at its worst, and things are hard to change when you've lived through it...but the parents of us teens today? Thats where I lay confused. One, never come to my area of the woods. Sadly, were I live a lot of people are racist; they'll treat others respectfully, but, in their hearts, they are racist. Secondly, violence breeds violence. One, I've lived in the same type of place, but without the showing of respect.
And secondly...I know that.  Hot damn I've been quoted!!! YAY! I mean..-cough.-
-Read bold print please.-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:05 pm
Risen. Angel. Quote: Color should not and should have , ever been an issue in the human society. Sorry, can't help it. Couldn't help what? You just made not one bit of sense right there. What? Was the color of skin suppose to be a big deal about how intelligent a person is, or if they are worth being higher than a slave or master? Besides the fact it has some help with UV rays...Poo. I still managed to get the English wrong. Should look like this: Color should not nor should have, ever, been an issue in the human society; or Color should not and never should have, been an issue in the human society. It was in reference to improper English. Quote: You don't have to like the person or respect them...but does it give you the right to hang them and let their decaying body lay in plain sight of their family and friends to see? If I don't have to respect them, why does it matter what I do to them and/or their families?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:20 pm
chaoticpuppet If I don't have to respect them, why does it matter what I do to them and/or their families? Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et all have answered this question. I will not bother repeating it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:24 pm
-Cough, scratches the back of her head.- You know why my english is never proper...^_____^;;; But thank you.
Exactly! What I was trying to get at was that people were disrespecting eachother just because of the color of their skin...not because of how well they do something in a job, or how they treat another person, things that should be judged apon. People are judging others by their skin tone, which is wrong. You don't have to respect the person...but don't let that reason be because of their skin tone.
...If that made any sense...O_o;;...maybe I should post on here in the morning when I'm fully awake. ^___^;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:28 pm
Tangled Up In Blue chaoticpuppet If I don't have to respect them, why does it matter what I do to them and/or their families? Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et all have answered this question. I will not bother repeating it. Ah, the social contract theory, no need for lives to be "nasty, brutish, and short." And no need repeating it. I know it well (at least Hobbes's). Kant answers it as well (though, he leaves us with the enquiring murderer paradox). However, if these people are not in any sort of position of power (and disregarding Kant), why then would it matter whether or not I respect them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:35 pm
chaoticpuppet However, if these people are not in any sort of position of power (and disregarding Kant), why then would it matter whether or not I respect them? It doesn't matter if you disrespect them. You just can't act on it in any meaningful way. If you do do something to them, it's a problem because A) if your action goes unpunished then the whole system falls apart and you open yourself up to reprisals from people who don't like you or B) in order to maintain the system and allow for the protection of everyone else you will be punished. It's all self-preservation. Then there's the existentialist argument that your actions represent the 'morality' that you have chosen for humanity (i.e. if you kill someone for reason X then it would be equally moral for someone to kill you for the same reason).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:11 pm
Tangled Up In Blue It doesn't matter if you disrespect them. You just can't act on it in any meaningful way. If you do do something to them, it's a problem because A) if your action goes unpunished then the whole system falls apart and you open yourself up to reprisals from people who don't like you or B) in order to maintain the system and allow for the protection of everyone else you will be punished. It's all self-preservation. Then there's the existentialist argument that your actions represent the 'morality' that you have chosen for humanity (i.e. if you kill someone for reason X then it would be equally moral for someone to kill you for the same reason). Blue, I cannot tell you how much I love you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:26 pm
chaoticpuppet Blue, I cannot tell you how much I love you. I love you too. But really, it can't be that hard to find people with a working knowledge of social contract theory and existentialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:33 pm
Tangled Up In Blue chaoticpuppet Blue, I cannot tell you how much I love you. I love you too. But really, it can't be that hard to find people with a working knowledge of social contract theory and existentialism. It's easier in the real world. Here, I only wish it were that easy. I know little of how it is in the forums. I hardly venture there, I belong to too many guilds (17).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:34 pm
Risen. Angel. ...the fact that they are living and breathing. I was looking for more of a... definition. Mice live and breath too, but they're not people. Ablazed Their personality? Their soul? The question which it sounds as though you're answering is "What the important part of a person?" A very good answer. ============= chaoticpuppet I very much dislike, in fact, you could say I rather loathe, the Simple Corrospondence Theory of Truth. *looks it up* The correspondence theory is "P is true if P corresponds to fact"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:06 pm
Mechanism chaoticpuppet I very much dislike, in fact, you could say I rather loathe, the Simple Corrospondence Theory of Truth. *looks it up* The correspondence theory is "P is true if P corresponds to fact"? Pretty much. I much prefer Descartes theory on truth. That truth is that which is absolutely certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:49 am
chaoticpuppet Quote: The correspondence theory is "P is true if P corresponds to fact"? Pretty much. I much prefer Descartes theory on truth. That truth is that which is absolutely certain. But what makes it certain? Myself, I'd say that P is true if P agrees with reality, but we can only know that P is true if we deduce P from self-evident axioms. Anyway, it seems as though the correspondence theory is circular (Truth is what's factual, fact is what's true.) ======================== Anyway, since this is a thread about racism: I think it's 'wrong' to believe a proposition that's either concluded with faulty reasoning, or concluded with no reasoning. Racism, as far as I've seen, is as such. For example, 'Joe got mugged by an Aboriginal, therefore all Aboriginals are terrible people' or simply 'I hate Asians!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
