Jim, sounds like… - Posted by soapymac
Posted by soapymac on October 21, 2000 at 11:49:40:
you’ve read and memorized the 208 Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
Jim, you sound like a conservative Republican - Posted by The Baze
Posted by The Baze on October 21, 2000 at 11:05:24:
Thank God! If so, you know what to do on Nov. 7. If not, try to be out of the country. LOL. 
Re: Start hating me now, 'cause I’ve had it - Posted by JHyre in Ohio
Posted by JHyre in Ohio on October 23, 2000 at 08:09:38:
“The structure of your argument is interesting. On the surface, it might be compelling, but an analysis of its framework could also render it an obscenity.”
In this- and especially your response to JPiper- you write like a professor of humanities. That is not a compliment. I’ve had quite a bit of experience with such people, little of it useful. Generally, their ideologies are formed in the sheltered halls of academia where quaint things such as facts do not intrude. The limited professorial view of the world is usually based on a view through a grossly distorted prism- the single window in the ivory tower so to speak. Few such people successfully survive outside of the tower. The ideologies crafted by so-called intellectuals in the last century have proven horribly destructive in practice- Communism and Nazism being the distillation of such ill-formed ramblings. You use the language and ideology of that class- do you share its inexperience or do you defy my initial categorization?
“Here’s an exercise.”
Ah, homework!
“Substitute the word ‘black’ for ‘poor’ in your post, then reread it.”
Typical academic argument. Instead of addressing the issue at hand- that is, the poor and whether Baze’s description thereof is correct as a generalization, you bring in race. Most white Americans have been conditioned to never ever say anything that could be construed as racist- and in fact they reflexively flinch when the concept comes up. That’s why leftists so often hurl (or insinuate) the term when it clearly does not apply. Why argue a point (e.g.- the poor) when intimidation (e.g.- you racist!) is so much more???expedient. Race and economics are not the same. Your analogy involves apples and oranges, there is little in the way of fit. Also, distinguish, between race and ethnic generalizations?.the latter are much easier to make because the statistical sample is much more limited and generally does share numerous cultural traits. For example, an overwhelming portion of Italians are Catholic?.try making that generalization about Caucasians.
“You’ll get a pretty good idea of how thought structure leads to ethnic and class condemnation.”
Nobody complains when-
Blacks are complimented for their stunning success in music and sports;
Asians are complimented for their remarkable work ethic or respect for education;
Hispanics are complimented for strong family values.
No, the criticism is when the same (useful) concept of generalization results in negative descriptions. Presumably, you are consistent and abhor ALL generalization.
“The people you deal with, you take one at a time.”
Yes, but trends DO exist and are a decent, if imperfect, predictor of behavior. We don’t have time in this life to learn EVERYTHING about EVERYONE FROM SCRATCH (E.g.- I have little time or interest in learning if you really are an academic?..but you do display some of the traits), so we start with what experience has taught about a class and adjust both the perception and the experience individual by individual. The MASTERS of generalization are politicians and marketers (same thing, really). Here’s a generalization for you- politicians and marketers make phenomenally accurate assessments of classes of people and successfully ACT on them. So, single women do TEND to vote Democratic and married white men do TEND to vote Republican. Other accurate generalizations- positive and negative- about both groups DO exist. The error comes in rigidly applying said generalization to an individual without confirmation of accuracy or in making a generalization that does NOT apply in general. Baze discusses the poor as a group- with some accuracy, given my direct and indirect experience with that group. Society uses generalizations- generally quite well, in fact. Those who think society or even individuals could function without them need to open the tower window?.or worse yet, take a walk outside and rub elbows with the masses.
“Otherwise, you find yourself at the precipice of blanket dam/nations of classes of folks, whether or not they on an individual basis are deserving.”
Happens all the time. As applied to groups it’s very useful (like anything else, IF correctly applied). Just ask the marketers and pols. We mere mortals also use generalization, if somewhat less scientifically. We do that because most groups- particularly those based on regional, ethnic, gender or economic traits- DO have certain things in common, some good, some bad, always with individual exceptions. Sounds like the science of statistics, oh wait, it is!
“You are at such a precipice.”
More like a curb that thinking people merely step over and once in a blue moon, trip over. We all make mistakes.
Well enough fun, back to more mundane- if lucrative matters.
John Hyre
PS: I TOTALLY disagree with your view of history, particularly where creation of wealth is involved. The book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, still in bookstores, addresses the we’re rich because “we have resources (like Russia?)”/“we scr*wed the third world (like Hong Kong?)” arguments in detail. Excellent book, accurate history.
born black!! - Posted by al
Posted by al on October 22, 2000 at 21:29:34:
remeber,you are born black and that can not be changed(ask micheal jackson!!),but being poor is an act!!
Re: Amen!!! - Posted by chris
Posted by chris on October 21, 2000 at 22:04:27:
Who is it that we are supposed to vote for?
The Standard Platonic Apology - Posted by Ed S.
Posted by Ed S. on October 21, 2000 at 18:11:49:
Nothing in the preceding post was meant to impugne the integrity of either Mr. Mulugeta or Mr. Piper. The thesis was merely this: there are ethical consequenses in REI that cannot be answered wholly by business considerations. Mr. Mulugeta was merely the principal in the story, and Mr. Piper, an advocate of a principle where other viewpoints needed to be heard.
I will say this: were I in Mr. Mulugeta’s position, I would probably do the same as he is doing. That I choose not to put myself in his position, thereby avoiding the ethical questions he is facing, well, those of you who have training will immediately see that as a philosophical cop-out. Morally, I am as guilty as he is, whether or not the question comes before me in a practical manner.
I am a newbie, fenugy, whatever you like. In my younger life, I bragged that I couldn’t afford to spell ‘poor,’ --all I could pay for was half the word and an apostrophe:
I was po’.
As such, I knew darn well that as long as the folks like me worked long and hard just to keep a roof overhead, they wouldn’t have time or energy to do the things we normally associate with ‘success.’ At that level survival comes first. At that level, survival is success.
That has and will color everyting I do for the rest of my life. When one emerges from the muck, the muck clings to you. Ignore it at your own spiritual peril.
I will not go easily back from whence I came, but I will not forget where I came from.
Thanks, John! - Posted by Ed S.
Posted by Ed S. on October 23, 2000 at 13:36:49:
You expressed your viewpoint very well. I won’t pretend agreement, but your ideas can’t simply be tossed away, either. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for the book recommendation. It sounds intriguing.
Ed