Law School Discussion

That's it, Rearden.

Garry Shandling

  • ****
  • 106
  • How's My Hair?
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2007, 05:20:44 PM »
In all honesty, I don't follow all the issues stuff that closely.  But is there something similar -- some similar discussion -- that is happening now that caused you to make this OP?

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2007, 05:21:02 PM »
breadboy's rephrasing was such that it included "belief that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."  what is the argument for how this is anything but racist?

statement: 500 years ago white Europeans were exploring the globe, making strides in astronomy, inventing things, writing great pieces of literature, but blacks were doing nothing.

There is little given at this point to suggest a reason for the supposed differences. Perhaps he will go on to suggest it was luck, or sorcery, or the weather. At this point in the sentence, there is very little that necessitates a superior race or suggests that whites are better (or even if what some lacked was necessarily morally desirable) than blacks. It would be even more of a stretch to say that, from this, whites have the right (rights in general are neither defined nor suggested) to rule over any other race.


Get out of my f-ing thread.  I told you to put it in context, where it's clearly racist.  You're not going to drag this into irrelevant semantics the way you usually do.

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2007, 05:21:50 PM »
whenever i see a post like this, from anyone, i just make a mental edit:

Just look at history Kay Dee.  500 years ago white Europeans were exploring the globe, making strides in astronomy, inventing things, writing great pieces of literature, but my mom was doing nothing.  My mom is no black  Shakespeare, my mom is no Native American Galileo.  Why did the Europeans advance so quickly compared to my mom?  Well there are probably a lot of reasons, but those aren't really important.  What is important is that my mom is capable of reversing this historical trends.  If my mom wants to succeed in what is essentially a white/Western society, she has got to adopt the same values that whites/Westerners have.  Think about it like a race...my mom as a whole is at an automatic disadvantage compared to whites.  So how do we even the match?  Affirmative action proponents seem to think we should just artificially place my mom up with the whites, but that ignores the reasons why whites are ahead to begin with.  Metaphorically, my mom needs to train her quadriceps and improve her endurance before truly being able to compete on a level playing field with whites and Asians.


it makes these posts so much easier to bear.



You see why you don't annoy me?   :D

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2007, 05:22:47 PM »
In all honesty, I don't follow all the issues stuff that closely.  But is there something similar -- some similar discussion -- that is happening now that caused you to make this OP?


Yeah.  Same approach to humanity.  It's here (starts about halfway down the page):

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,74437.1020.html

Harmonium

  • ****
  • 352
  • Schiedmayer
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2007, 05:23:10 PM »
Harmonium, or anyone else, it behooves me to think that anyone could see this sentence alone as not being unbelievably ignorant and racist:

Quote
500 years ago white Europeans were exploring the globe, making strides in astronomy, inventing things, writing great pieces of literature, but blacks were doing nothing.

racism - a belief system or doctrine which states that inherent biological differences between human races determine cultural or individual achievement with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

That could be but is not necessarily racist.

Yes, this was why it didn't seem inherantly racist to me. The fact that Africa did not produce (edit: 500 years ago) a Galileo or Kant does not mean blacks do not have the capacity to produce such individuals in the future. It's completely obvious that they do have this capacity.


obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2007, 05:24:58 PM »
breadboy's rephrasing was such that it included "belief that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."  what is the argument for how this is anything but racist?

statement: 500 years ago white Europeans were exploring the globe, making strides in astronomy, inventing things, writing great pieces of literature, but blacks were doing nothing.

There is little given at this point to suggest a reason for the supposed differences. Perhaps he will go on to suggest it was luck, or sorcery, or the weather. At this point in the sentence, there is very little that necessitates a superior race or suggests that whites are better (or even if what some lacked was necessarily morally desirable) than blacks. It would be even more of a stretch to say that, from this, whites have the right (rights in general are neither defined nor suggested) to rule over any other race.


Get out of my f-ing thread.  I told you to put it in context, where it's clearly racist.  You're not going to drag this into irrelevant semantics the way you usually do.


Note the question's author.

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #56 on: February 08, 2007, 05:27:36 PM »
To be perfectly fair, while some things that Hank posts are certainly poorly written I think it's quite a jump to actually call them racist.


Have you read what's been posted in this thread?

Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2007, 05:28:11 PM »
Harmonium, or anyone else, it behooves me to think that anyone could see this sentence alone as not being unbelievably ignorant and racist:

Quote
500 years ago white Europeans were exploring the globe, making strides in astronomy, inventing things, writing great pieces of literature, but blacks were doing nothing.

racism - a belief system or doctrine which states that inherent biological differences between human races determine cultural or individual achievement with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

That could be but is not necessarily racist.

Yes, this was why it didn't seem inherantly racist to me. The fact that Africa did not produce (edit: 500 years ago) a Galileo or Kant does not mean blacks do not have the capacity to produce such individuals in the future. It's completely obvious that they do have this capacity.



Who's writing history, and has been for, oh, ever?  >:(

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2007, 05:28:43 PM »
To be perfectly fair, while some things that Hank posts are certainly poorly written I think it's quite a jump to actually call them racist.

I'm with Inspector Javert - it seems like this thread's an overreaction to things Hank has said. I repeat a previous poster's question: OP, what brought this on all of a sudden?

I answered that question.

I will also ask you what I asked Gyges: have you read this thread?



Or are you just cutting Hank slack because you find him "charming"? 

FFS

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: That's it, Rearden.
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2007, 05:29:35 PM »
Harmonium, or anyone else, it behooves me to think that anyone could see this sentence alone as not being unbelievably ignorant and racist:

Quote
500 years ago white Europeans were exploring the globe, making strides in astronomy, inventing things, writing great pieces of literature, but blacks were doing nothing.

racism - a belief system or doctrine which states that inherent biological differences between human races determine cultural or individual achievement with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

That could be but is not necessarily racist.

Yes, this was why it didn't seem inherantly racist to me. The fact that Africa did not produce (edit: 500 years ago) a Galileo or Kant does not mean blacks do not have the capacity to produce such individuals in the future. It's completely obvious that they do have this capacity.



Who's writing history, and has been for oh, ever?  >:(


This gets very close to the crux of the matter.  I think Harmonium's fairly intelligent, so I'll leave it up to him/her to figure some things out first and read more of that thread before I start tackling this.