 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>>> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
>> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
>> legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
> I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
You're confusing "causes" with "permits". There's already racial
discrimination. By removing all controls on how you may conduct business,
some people will preferentially patronize businesses that discriminate
against those they don't like.
It's sort of like how freedom of speech doesn't cause anti-government radio
stations. It just permits them in ways that a country with heavy censorship
does not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>> a long time.
>>>
>>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>
>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
>> I heard in a long time.
>
> And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> I have heard in a long time.
>
> You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> situation.
>
It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
place.
Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
context and attack that. Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
have happened). Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
argument.
In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
man I would say.
I am sure you meant something different and more intelligent, but this
is what appeared in this news group, sorry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
> > No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
> > legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
> I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
>
> If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
> communism do the same?
>
My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.
I've praised Capitalism a few times now by saying it's the best system for
giving people what they want. Sometimes they want bad things, like to be able
to smoke in restaurants where children are present. As for the American South,
some discrimination was foisted upon those without hate by the state; more often
those with hate used the marketplace to press for discrimination. Civil rights
activists like Millard Fuller wrote of the boycott of black business as a tool
of the racists; the activists became involved haranguing people about where to
shop.
Chocolate. Blind capitalism gave us widespread use of slave labor. Through the
marketplace, you kept saying, give me cheaper, give me cheaper, until
eventually no corner was left to cut but the farmworker's wages. The answer is
not necessarily the State here but nagging. Activists harangued the importers to
stop using slave labor; then harangued people of good will to buy from the
importers who showed more good will than the others in rectifying the situation.
The socialism/ capitalism dilemma is shown here in the famous opening credit for
the Odd Couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odd_Couple_(TV_series)
Felix is not calling the cops, he is not sending Oscar to a prison camp. He is
however harassing, nagging Oscar about having thrown a cigarette butt on the
ground. The look of disgust from Oscar is probably the same you'd get if you
nagged someone about smoking in a restaurant where children are present, about
the MPG of the car they purchased, the age of the "actors" in the DVD they
purchased, what kind of wages were paid the bean-pickers with the chocolate
they purchased. It is the look of Southerners seeing nonviolent activists
driving over the border to tell them how to live with blacks.
Q: When Texas passed a "beef blasphemy" law, under which Oprah Winfrey was sued
for making criticisms of an agricultural process, was law that a liberal or
conservative one, was it capitalistic or socialistic? How about when New York
state flirted with a law that would have forbidden farmers from telling
consumers whether they used growth hormones on the cows?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> >>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> >>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> >>> a long time.
> >>>
> >>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> >>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> >
> >> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
> >> I heard in a long time.
> >
> > And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> > I have heard in a long time.
> >
> > You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> > situation.
> >
> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
> place.
Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
will provide it."
Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
they are quoting?
> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
> context and attack that.
Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
be confused about what I was referring to).
It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
context.
> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
> have happened).
At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. Capitalism does
ot lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
racism (while other economic models don't).
> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
> argument.
> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
> man I would say.
What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
meta-straw-man?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.
I think it's also a matter of education. People think slavery is bad and
blacks are "equal" because they've been taught that. They haven't been
taught that (for example) gays are normal people too. It requires state
schools run by tolerant people (which is why you see battles over evolution
in schools here) and it takes a generation or more to really take effect.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."
Well, it followed the remark about slavery in Africa, which is far more
racist than merely disallowing dark-skinned people to patronize your store.
I thought you were talking about the Africa sentence too. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-12-2009 16:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>>>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>>>> a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>>>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
>>>> I heard in a long time.
>>> And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
>>> I have heard in a long time.
>>>
>>> You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
>>> situation.
>>>
>
>> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
>> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
>> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
>> place.
>
> Who said anything about Africa.
gregjohn did.
> I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."
Sigh, read on before replying next time.
> Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
> they are quoting?
Either the last sentence or the whole quote. The convention is that if
you only want to react to a part your response comes immediately after
that part. And after that you give the rest of the context.
Or you do what used to be the convention before e-mail: repeat part of
the thing you want to refer to, to make clear what you intend.
The way you responded made it impossible to know which sentence you were
replying to.
>> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
>> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
>> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
>> context and attack that.
>
> Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
> be confused about what I was referring to).
You quoted the whole context and responded to only a part, if that makes
it more clear to you.
> It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
> referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
> I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
> last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
> context.
>
>> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
>> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
>> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
>> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
>> have happened).
>
> At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous.
Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my
problem.
> Capitalism does
> not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
> will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> racism (while other economic models don't).
totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.
>> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
>> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
>> argument.
>> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
>> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
>> man I would say.
>
> What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
> man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
> meta-straw-man?
Sorry, I explained why I *perceived* what you wrote as a straw man
argument, because you asked for it. As such it is just that: an
explanation, it is not an argument. The only sensible answer would have
been: 'Oh, I did not realise people interpreted what I wrote wrong in
this way. Next time I take more care.' Alternatively, you can just
reiterate that the rest of the world is absolutely stupid for not
understanding you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous.
> Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my
> problem.
That would be a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, or in more mundane
terms, "correlation implies causation" fallacy.
The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
States. Hence capitalism causes racism.
Sorry, you fail.
Could you please point out a country where capitalism *demonstrably* has
caused racism (because, in your own words, these things "happen"), rather
than just both phenomena appearing in the same country without there
necessarily being a direct correlation between the two?
(And please don't tell me that you understood what I wrote as meaning
"racism doesn't happen, that's ludicrous.")
> > Capitalism does
> > not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
> > will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> > country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> > racism (while other economic models don't).
> totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.
Of course he did. He talked about how capitalism and free commerce could
lead to things like racist behavior. That was the whole point.
If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
> States. Hence capitalism causes racism.
Nobody said capitalism causes racism except you.
> If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?
That totally unrestricted capitalism allows people to exercise their
existing racism as long as that racism is profitable in that marketplace.
Just like unrestricted capitalism allows people to pollute as long as that
pollution is profitable in that marketplace. By singling out the one remark
about racism, you seem to have indicated that you missed the point, which
was that with less and less government restriction, one moves away from
socialism, communism, and fascism, and towards capitalism and anarchy, and
that movement is not always what we'd call socially beneficial even if it
maximizes the profits/financial health in a particular market.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
>>> mind.
>>>
>
>> It probably does to you.
>
> Me having that opinion would be really obnoxious if I were a rich snob,
> but I'm certainly not. I barely make a living.
>
> But I honestly don't feel any kind of jealousy towards rich people. If they
> want to put their kids to expensive private schools, then why not? Does it
> hurt me in any way if they do that? No. Then why should it bother me? It
> doesn't make sense.
>
> What *would* be unfair is to pass some ridiculous law which would forbid
> them from doing that and instead force those kids to get a lesser education,
> just because the majority is jealous of them being rich. *That* would be
> obnoxious, IMO.
>
As long as they pay their property taxes thus paying back for their own
education, theoretically, it is usually accepted as a fair compromise.
It is when generations of private school induces the idea that they
should not have to contribute to the public school system that it gets
worrisome. People without children are quick to join the bandwagon
oblivious to the fact that they are not paying for someone else's kid's
education, they are paying back for their own.
Of course the other source of money being lost is through parent
association fund raising, but that is inherently unfair anyway. Even
with public schools there is going to be rich schools and poor schools.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
