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

On 31-12-2009 17:49, Warp wrote:
> 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.

No, sorry. I never said that capitalism causes racism. I think I won't 
mention that you again distorted a remark from someone else and tried to 
ridicule that. No point really.

>   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.")

I didn't understand that, so I won't tell that.

>>> 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?
> 

IMHO just that: if there is already racism, capitalism might lead to 
companies that capitalize on that.
I think in a later mail he said that he knew of instances where that 
actually happened. In his post that started this 'discussion' he did 
only said that in his opinion it would be a logical consequence.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> oblivious to the fact that they are not paying for someone else's kid's 
> education, they are paying back for their own.

That, and that having an educated population is good for them even if 
they're uneducated themselves. Sort of like how having enough people 
vaccinated protects those who aren't as well.

-- 
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 18:09, Darren New wrote:

Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I 
though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain 
the lurkers.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
> 
> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I 
> though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain 
> the lurkers.

I think it's OK if we're both ganging up on Warp. ;-) ;-)

(No, really, I'm just kidding. :-)

-- 
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