EclecticIdealist

Asked and answered already.

Generally, an instance or act of racism is not prejudice manifest toward or against an entire race of people, but prejudice toward or against an individual or small group of people classified as members of that race... My apologies for my previous attempt at conveying my thought which was less than clear.

(redundant)

So basically, you can read, but you can't comprehend what you read.

If the child knows nothing about race, but chooses to play ONLY with those who share the physical qualities characterizing members of his race BECAUSE they share those physical qualities, and not because they find those particular qualities attractive in the children they choose to play with, or unattractive in the children they choose to not play with, it is racism. Inaccurate and Ironically self-descriptive post.

Assumptions are prejudices by definition. Assumptions based on race are racist assumptions.

Racism is prejudice and discrimination toward individuals or groups based on stereotypes, characteristics or qualities associated with a specific race or ethnicity. The prejudice or discrimination may be positive or negative. Racial supremacy or racial inferiority is a perception or bias based on which qualities or characteristics are justified as being more important than others.

Massive Attack - 100th Window The whole album is good, but I recommend to you Track #2 starting @ 5:38

Already prisoners are doing many jobs that would otherwise be done by foreign workers. Everything from making clothing to furniture, even agricultural work in State Parks and Forests, not to mention picking up trash. What about the piece CBS News - 60 Minutes did last april on German prisons?

Highly improbable. 1 - If Obama attempted to remain in power rather than honor whatever the States and Congress decide, he would likely be impeached. 2 - The Supreme Court would most likely ignore any Republican challenges to the validity of her election and consider the situation to be an Article 2 or Amendment 25 succession situation wherein the President is found permanently incapable of fulfilling their duties due to death, critical illness, or felonious conduct, and swear in the Vice President elect to the office of President of the United States. 3 - If it happened immediately after her election in November, a special election might be called by the Congress and the States and the Democrats, after a hasty emergency primary would put forth a candidate to run against Trump (unless the Republicans take the opportunity to have a similar emergency primary). Following the special election, the president elect would be sworn into office, perhaps a month or two later and President Obama would be the 2nd longest sitting President of the United States having served 2 full terms and a partial 3rd term of a few months. 4 - Worst probable case, it would take until mid-2017 for a new primary and a special election in November 2017. This is the least likely scenario that's still reasonably plausible in my opinion.

Unless it has previously been established that sex with one's partner while they are intoxicated or unconscious is permissible, it should be presumed to be impermissible. Generally, i agree with LM and Vox that there is a general presumption of consent; however, along with such a presumption of consent is a presumption of consideration. If the consideration is lacking, the marriage will be in trouble every bit as much, if not more so than if the consent is lacking. It's not a difficult conversation to have. It might even be a conversation to have before marriage, especially if the idea of having sex with someone who is drunk or sleeping is appealing to you.

I'm really not understanding what you're suggesting here. What it SOUNDS like is that you're being critical of BLM because there's a widespread movement to constantly shame and chastise it, and it's generally socially acceptable to do so. But I really think I must be misunderstanding what you're attempting to say. Furthermore, I'm certain I could find Trump supporters and "Blue Lives Matter" supporters who would say, "it's open season on killing N******s." Such individuals are certainly not representative of all Trump supporters by a long shot, and yet you're only citing the worst examples of BLM supporters and suggesting they are representative of the whole. You're not making any reference to other BLM supporters who are decrying the violence, decrying the senseless rioting, and condemning the murders of policemen. As to what your marxist media is saying about equality and living in a melting pot being racist, that sounds more like an indictment of the media. Again, you're suggesting a violent, vocal minority as representative of the whole. If I were to do the same with those supporting Trump or the Police, you'd be crying foul. Can't you see you're applying a double-standard? Yes there are those who have been very vocal in calling for violence and even executions; but to suggest this puts them beyond the realm of some of the worst white supremacist groups is to be willfully forgetful of all the cries on the part of so many White Supremacist radicals to assassinate Barrack Obama and murder his entire family, to murder Black leaders and to exterminate Blacks as a race. Again, such are not by any means representative of most Trump supporters or Conservatives in general. They're not even representative of most White Supremacists, and it would be improper and inaccurate to represent them as such; and yet that is what you're doing with the violent vocal minority of BLM supporters. I read the article. It said that some of the government policies and people in the UK are racist. Furthermore, I found no "completely false statements" in the article about the UK's role in promoting racism, nor did I see the article painting the rest of the world as completely innocent victims of white supremacy. Rather, I saw the article pointing out the UK's historical role in promoting racism, especially in connection with slavery. Which is not to say that we should ignore it's tremendous contributions in moving to end slavery. All the more reason why the UK shouldn't find it problematic in eliminating any remaining racial prejudices that might yet remain in its governmental policies. Again, it sounds to me like you're taking criticism directed at the UK government policies and social programs quite personally. If an honest and dispassionate evaluation demonstrates the criticisms are wholly without merit, such an article should hardly give rise to feelings of anger or frustration; rather, such an article should give rise to sober reflection, analysis and then a dispassionate acknowledgement of the past and a refutation of the present situation as the evidence warrants such a refutation. i agree with you that many other countries are much worse than the UK and America... in fact one would be hard pressed to find many (if any) countries that are better. than these. But that fact should not excuse us from being slack in addressing any remaining inequities which yet exist (of which I am personally aware of a few in the lives of my own friends, family, and acquaintances). My point about mentioning the aforementioned groups was that it seems that you are particularly selective and defensive in criticizing BLM while not being critical of these other groups which are engaging in similar, occasionally extreme, irrational, and unfair criticism and hypocrisy. I do not consider the continuation of Western Civilization to be threatened by groups like BLM, especially if their very real and legitimate concerns are actually addressed - concerns which, incidentally, extend across racial lines or boundaries, such as the militarization of our police forces and the marked increase in police violence, brutality, and escalation in the use of force against civilians who are not a threat without facing accountability for such actions.

So you're suggesting I was meant to find something funny about the original post? Furthermore, you need to hone your sense of empathy before you dismiss sarcasm as not being abusive and destructive. I've never said that all cops are racist. I've never even said that most cops are racist, even though such appears to be the case in a few smaller police departments. So you think no cops are racist? Now you're engaging in hyperbole. Do you honestly believe that I am defending the actions of the rioters in Milwaukee, Ferguson, and elsewhere? Do you honestly think I'm defending the actions of the Murderer(s?) responsible for the deaths of the policemen in Dallas, New York, and elsewhere? Given your comments, I truly suspect you believe I am or would. Your comments further cause me to wonder whether you would think it fair of people to suppose as a result of your own comments that you must be in favor of police brutality and the unnecessary escalation of violence against minorities, especially young Black men. If you don't think such an assessment would be fair, then perhaps you should consider whether you're applying a double-standard of behavior, one to yourself and a different standard to everyone else critical of your beliefs or position on this matter. Why the sarcasm? Why not simply state that one finds those claiming "Black Lives Matter" to be hypocritical in light of the rampant violence and murder committed by the Black community on itself indicating that to all too many members of the Black community, Black lives and the lives of others don't matter to them any more than they do to any others.?

I see. I must have missed all the threads and posts where you similarly blasted: Feminists for writing about rape Christians for calling you to repent in the name of Jesus of all your sinful ways Muslims for complaining about Westerners influence in the Middle East Environmentalists talking about how we're destroying the planet GreenPeacers complaining about whaling and the destruction of the seas Vegans about people klling animals for food and clothing every other group which you are not a part of and do not sympathize But alright... maybe there's something different about BLM that justifies this special treatment that I'm not seeing in the article you cited which seems to be blaming the government of the UK and dead racist White guys like Charles Darwin, not the average White UK male.

Are you so accustomed to sarcasm that you don't recognize the use of sarcasm is almost always abusive, and intended to be destructive? If you have read my other posts, you should know why I think what I think. If you don't know what I think and why I think it, then I recommend you do two things. Don't assume you know what I think, and then re-read what I've written elsewhere again. As to the direct answer to your question, "Is it racism?" The answer is, "Sometimes, but not always; and when it is, it's not always a conscious bias, although sometimes it is."

No, that's your justification in posting this. That's not your purpose in posting this. Why did you post the videos with nothing more than the comment "Black Lives Matter... until they don't?" I get it. Blacks should stop calling attention to the police brutality against them and how they are treated differently by society until after they've addressed and solved the black-on-black violence, higher incidence of criminal activity, poverty, and illegitimate parenting (why are children considered illegitimate due to the actions of their parents?), gang shootings in the US and UK, and police brutality in Africa and other predominantly Black run countries. What did the two videos from the original post, or the comment about them actually have to say about these problems you are mentioning and how to address them? I see these responses a lot, something like "it's completely justifiable to be critical of BLM because (crime statistics and other facts about the majority of Black people and minorities who also happen to be poor, underemployed, and coming from single-parent households). Anyone complaining about this criticism is being completely irrational because (legitimate issues never brought up or mentioned in original post, but only used to justify original post after being called out for making or defending original post)". Are these truly concerns that you have, or merely defensive justification for the original post? If they're truly concerns, why were they not mentioned in response to the original post, but only in response to criticism of the original post?

All victims of violence and abuse matter; except Black lives, 'cause they just bring it on themselves, so they don't matter, or not as much, right aviet64?

It will only get better when POC come to realize that virtually everyone in government, not just republicans/conservatives are there not to serve the people, but to be served by them; not to help the people but to be helped by them, not to enrich the poor but to be enriched by them, not to end oppression but to perpetuate it in a never ending cycle. It will only ever get better when we do a better job of getting people to see the problems facing them clearly and presenting them with actual solutions that will solve the problem, not simply shift the burden onto someone else's shoulders.

Graham, on 09 Aug 2016 - 10:50 AM, said: The argument is that value/utility/satisfaction is a state. It is a state because it can be measured (with money) and it characterizes an economic system in equilibrium (you only trade if it increases value/utility/satisfaction and equilibrium means you've achieved your ends and stopped acting). You can measure it by defining a zero-value point and measuring from there, just like altitude is measured from sea level, itself an arbitrary point (this is one reason why sound money is required for "economic calculation") I understand what you’re suggesting here, you're asserting that value is a state of being. That is a valid way of looking at value. However, I still dispute the validity of attempting to objectively quantify such a state of being with money or some other form or units as some have endeavored to do. Value is a subjective preference for one thing over another or over its absence. It exists only in the mind of the person doing the valuing. Value, in the sense of a state of being or an ideal is not the same kind of thing as quantity or amount. People have attempted to quantify utility even satisfaction, and yet even these states of being are not readily quantifiable in any objective way. Value is preference; value is desire; value is love. Value cannot be quantified with money, or labor expended even though money and labor may be traded in exchange for property or services which one values more. You cannot measure value with money. Value is non-quantifiable. What is quantifiable is what one voluntarily exchanges for something else. What you’re attempting to define is an objective measure of value, but what you’re actually measuring is only what one has willing exchanged for something else that they valued more, perhaps even infinitely more (i.e., they would have traded everything for it). Graham, on 09 Aug 2016 - 10:50 AM, said: If it can be measured once, it can theoretically be measured for every choice ever made in life and we would have a precise value/utility/satisfaction number. Except value can’t be quantified or measured even once except in relational terms of “more than, less than, or equal to.” The only thing that can be measured is the quantity of what was exchanged at a given point in time, not the value to the individuals making the exchange, and what was exchanged is not representative of an equal and objective valuation of property or services or “states of being”. It is only a measure of what one party was willing to accept or another was willing to pay in order for the exchange to take place. Graham, on 09 Aug 2016 - 10:50 AM, said: So value/utility/satisfaction is very clearly defined as a state. No, it’s not. The passages you cite and your previous statements refute the notion that value is clearly defined, even as a state. Value is preference for a state, not the state itself. Value is utility, value is not satisfaction. Value is the desire or preference for utility, the desire or preference of satisfaction (over its lack). Graham, on 09 Aug 2016 - 10:50 AM, said: The way (I think) you marry these two ideas (as Shirgill said, subjective and objective elements) is you let preference be subjective and value/utility/satisfaction be objectively revealed. Because if your preferences change you will see a change in value. But preference and value are the same thing. Utility is also largely subjective, and satisfaction certainly is. The only thing that can be objectively, quantitatively measured is the actual property or services that were voluntarily exchanged, and while some economists will call the average amount of cash/per unit paid the market value, it's really nothing more than an aggregate of those who chose to transact versus those who chose not to transact and not reflective of value at all. It's really nothing more than market price. Graham, on 09 Aug 2016 - 10:50 AM, said: Going back to UPB, you can then let people have all sorts of different preferences (I hate fish, some prefer it) and you can abstract the universal preference to be for an increase in value. Once you've done this you can really simply characterize all possible exchanges in UPB between 2 people (Bill and Ted). (dV is change in value, the value of the end state minus the value of the starting state, action is that which connects them in time) I have no issue with the comparison of relative value perceived by each actor in the voluntary exchange. There's no attempt to quantify the unquantifiable in such an instance. It is only when you suggest it is possible to quantify value in terms of money or some other quantifiable measure that I believe you're making a mistake. I provided a perfectly valid example of how 1 now may be worth 100 or more later. If you choose to ignore it on the basis that you're unable to grasp the time value of money, you've got more problems than a short life to worry about.

You're mistaken if you think that Fiat Currency and War is the result of the Constitution being held as the standard for the world to follow. It's hardly held as the standard for the US to follow anymore. Sure, they pay lip-service to it, but that's about it. The People of this Nation are too ignorant and apathetic to do anything about it.

When is it ever in reality? I believe the most obvious way of proving that value is subjective is to point to the market... whether the stock market, the commodities market, even the corner market. Do you notice that all prices for goods are the same at all times and all stores or on all exchanges? One would have to be either completely, willfully blind or a devoted marxist to ignore the evidence before their eyes that value is anything other than subjective. Value is not a state function. You can assert it all you wish and it won't make it so. If you wish for anyone to accept your notion, you must actually make a case for it, not merely assert it or attempt to justify it with equations that don't reflect the reality of how things actually work. Okay, however, all that would do is indicate the predicted subjective value the person has for the exchange over all potential circumstances and outcomes. Integrating the probability curve renders the desire of the individual for the exchange over all probabilities. If the person is particularly risk averse as the article suggests, then the integrated value will be negative and the person will not engage in the exchange because they will expect to lose more than they will gain. What's your point other than to dismiss it? Or maybe that's your point, rather than to actually learn something or propose a counter argument to the austrian economics view of subjective value. I've read it. When there is force involved (i.e. theft by deception or coercion) there is no free exchange of value and thereby, the net value in the system does not increase. You might consider the net value in the system to remain the same, but in fact, it has decreased, as the thief has destroyed the opportunity of creating a mutually beneficial situation for both. Free exchange of value is not unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma sometimes referred to as the "Red/Black Game". When both parties engage in a mutually beneficial way, both profit nominally. However, when one or the other seeks to take advantage of the other, they either both lose, or one "wins" at the short-term expense of the other until the other is either destroyed, engages in mutual destruction, or stops playing altogether. Why would you say that? Simply because I am familiar with much of what she has written? As to why Ragnar did not give the moral speech, I assume you are talking about Francisco's speech about money (if you mean some other speech on morals, you'll need to be more specific. Atlas Shrugged had numerous moral speeches in it, some longer than others, John Galt's near the end being by far the longest.) First off, I imagine the greatest reason was the fact that he was not present and was off engaging in acts of "piracy" against those who had "looted" the producers of their goods and were attempting to "redistribute them to the supposed poor and needy" how they (the looters) saw fit (whereas Ragnar was returning the property to its rightful owners). As to why Galt is a "physicist", he's more of an Electrical Engineer and Inventor along the lines of Nikola Tesla than a physicist, per se, but that's fine, we'll call him a physicist. As to the question of why, because that is where his interests and abilities took him. It is where he decided to spend his time and energy to create value for others, until he saw that such time and effort was being squandered by collectivists who had no interest in engaging in moral behavior and justly compensating him for the value he was intent on creating for himself and others. Ah, now you speak plainly. Your wish is to engage in ad hominem against Murray Rothbard and the other proponents of Austrian Economic Theory in order to denounce the subjective value theory rather than putting forth a sound argument demonstrating how it is wrong, or a counter argument demonstrating how an "objective value theory" is correct. How about I simply concede the assertion that Rothbard or his followers have failed to provide a precise definition of value to your liking and be done with it.

Under the right circumstances, $100 may be worth more than $1000 to the person willing to trade $1000 over time for $100 immediately. If you've ever purchased anything on credit you should know precisely what I'm talking about. It matters not whether A and B are trading with each other or a third party. The principle remains the same. You speak of "the same change in value for the person", but you're being vague and ambiguous as to what this change in value actually is. Furthemore, you're suggesting that there is a difference in the value that must be added to each person to cover the value lost in reading the tome, but again you ignore the quantification of value and who is making such a quantification for the cost of reading the tome. Person A is indicating the cost to them is $100 whereas Person B is indicating the cost to them is a mere $1. That is how much much Person A and Person B regard the time, effort, and loss of opportunity respectively for each of them to read the book. That is a subjective valuation of their time on their part, not an objective one. So you are still faced with the inherent subjectivity of value and you've yet to identify what value there may be, if any beyond a purely financial one, which A and B might obtain from reading the book. You've only asserted that there is one, and that it is the same for A and B, both claims being made without justification or support--merely gratuitous assertions. You do understand that the equation you're referencing as a value function is actually a function "describing" the subjective anticipated value based on the probability of risk and reward as estimated by someone with a multitude of choices, and such an equation has only a passing relation to your initial example? As you've referenced Murray Rothbard, perhaps you'll be willing to educate yourself on Subjective Value by visiting Mises.or https://mises.org/library/subjective-value-theoryor if you already have, you can share why you consider their analysis to be incorrect. You're actually mistaken about it not fluctuating as Tyler H asked. What Ayn Rand is merely stating with artistic license is that the origin of money if human production. I think she says it better in the words of her character Fransisco d'Anconia in his famous speech on money: "... Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. ... Money is made possible only by the men who produce. ..." - A. Rand - "Atlas Shrugged" Now you're back to two in the room instead the two independently trading with a third? Fine. The equation I gave you still works. It may not be perfect, but it illustrates the principle well enough.

Not every conception of God is inherently contradictory. Belief in a God or the possible existence of a God that one knows or believes to be inherently (i.e., conceptually) contradictory is irrational. The lack of observation or evidence of something should not preclude the belief in the possibility of something that is inherently (i.e. conceptually) consistent. One may not have the evidence of aliens existing, but one can be rationally agnostic as to the existence of carbon-based life-forms existing on other planets similar to earth somewhere in the universe. Or, the absence of evidence for the conceptually rational is not evidence of the non-existence of the conceptually rational (nor is it evidence of its existence--there are infinitely many more things that are possible than are actual).

Yes, in the hypothetical instance that it is possible for the subjective valuation of two different individuals to be equal; which doesn't really make sense... that's like comparing how much a fan of Rock & Roll values listening to Rock & Roll vs how much a Country music fan values listening to Country music. If these could actually be quantified... then hypothetically, they could be equal; but how could one ever really determine this? There is no universal currency of subjective value - not even dollars or gold, etc.