Drk, I don't have time for a long post, but your rebuttals have been excellent, keep it up.
Drk, I don't have time for a long post, but your rebuttals have been excellent, keep it up.
the suggestion to invite members of quirky sects and nerds who never had a girlfriend to stalk me in real life is not very appealing, brian.Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I don't get this at all, and I'm a believer in less anonymity on the internet.
While I'd like to know who I'm talking to, it's pretty easy to take people at face value, which is what I do. That's why I got quite snotty in the prostitution thread when a bloke admitting to drama queening it. He did have the good grace to apologise, and I think that's indicative of most people - they generally are honest.
Even with people you know, how can you be assured they aren't chameleoning it anyway? Saying what they think you want to hear? I have to do that myself sometimes in business - if a customer wants to have a yarn to me about the All Blacks, I don't say, "Well, I'm pleased to see them lose because they're a bunch of overpaid layabouts who are the final product of the complete destruction of the game by immovably stupid people in the NZRU." even though that would sum up my feelings on the game. Instead, I say, "Yeah, they were awful, but at least Dan the Man will be back next time and they can't play that badly twice in a row" and appear to be interested and informed.
We don't always wear our hearts on our sleeves, so I see no reason to think that opinions here are any less honest than any others.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Intergeneratively socialized deficiency of embodied cultural capital caused by age-long racial segregation. If that's of some help.
Last edited by amarna; 08-03-2009 at 05:23 AM.
Who they are, where they are from etc are completely irrelivant to the discussion Brian. If someone wants to be anonymous on this forum, they are allowed to be, there is nothing childish about it. I for one regret not giving myself a "pointless" pseudonym.
"Come away O human child!To the waters of the wild, With a faery hand in hand, For the worlds more full of weeping than you can understand."
W.B.Yeats
"If it looks like a Dwarf and smells like a Dwarf, then it's probably a Dwarf (or a latrine wearing dungarees)"
Artemins Fowl and the Lost Colony by Eoin Colfer
my poems-please comment Forum Rules
Unfortunately, you've got no control data to compare it to, so that's kind of a spurious statement, really. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can't claim it as correct as it has no evidential basis.
As a counter, I'd offer the Maori people of New Zealand. Where African-Americans were disenfranchised, Maori were enfranchised before many whites. Where Native Americans had their land stolen, Maori had their ownership enshrined in our founding document. (Yes, there have been a few disputes since, and Maori iwi (tribes) have been compensated in billions of dollars.)
Maori are one of the most privileged people on the planet, yet they are represented in prison statistics, welfare payments, teenage pregnancy, low life expectancy and sexual diseases to almost exactly the same ratio as African Amercans.
You absolutely cannot blame Maori problems on any socio-economic or cultural rationale.
The easy - and convenient - answer is quite often wrong.
I have no clue what the answer is, but I think your 21st-century friendly answer isn't it.
Huh... and I thought it was a clever reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.I for one regret not giving myself a "pointless" pseudonym.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Neither do I - it seems a bit hypocritical.
No, the very 21st-century friendly answer is "I have no clue what the answer is."
Atheist, unfortunately I don't have the time to answer your post en detail now (I need a little longer for English is not my mother tongue) but I would like to do it as soon as I will have more time.
I don't object to it in principal, I really don't care what people wish to call themselves although I do like to know who I am talking to. It certainly is relevant to the discussion. For example, a thread may concern a topic that has different ramifications in one country as opposed to another. If I know which country a fellow forum member inhabits I can speak more clearly about the issue and get similar feedback from him or her. Generally it isn't difficult to work out that many of the members are from the USA and so I can tailor my comments to fall in line with the situation as it prevails there. Sometimes, however, it is impossible to tell and I might go into a post that has very little relevance for the addressee, simply because I dont know where they are from. Obviously, it doesn't apply to most of the forum but in the case of the Serious Discussions sub-forum, knowing the country of the person concerned helps to avoid being misunderstood.Who they are, where they are from etc are completely irrelivant to the discussion Brian. If someone wants to be anonymous on this forum, they are allowed to be, there is nothing childish about it. I for one regret not giving myself a "pointless" pseudonym.
i see no problem with pseudonyms on the internet but if people are going to start being petty then i am heather from central scotland. dont quite see what that had to do with anything, let alone the question but ok. . .
seems like you are avoiding the question by deflecting onto another subject.
love the stars
What is a ghost?
A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and again?
A moment of pain perhaps.
Something dead which still seems to be alive.
An emotion suspended in time.
Like a blurred photograph.
Like an insect trapped in amber.
A ghost.
That's what I am.
Ok Heather,i see no problem with pseudonyms on the internet but if people are going to start being petty then i am heather from central scotland. dont quite see what that had to do with anything, let alone the question but ok. . .
seems like you are avoiding the question by deflecting onto another subject.
love the stars
Now I know where you are from I know that your comments are being seen from a UK perspective. Other countries experiences may be somewhat different to our own.
Whilst it is true that that whites and other races generally do better than blacks scholastically, I have never heard it suggested that racism is the cause; the usual reason given is that they are financially disadvantaged.
I think that's wrong and that the actual reason, apart from a few obvious exceptions, is that they are temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits.
I would absolutely hate to be a teacher in an inner City school where the majority of the pupils were black but, as you know, that is the unfortunate situation that some teachers find themselves in.
Coming on to your second point, I also haven't heard it claimed that racism causes unmarried mothers and since there are increasing numbers of white unmarried mothers, obviously racism cannot be to blame.
I completely agree with you that it is down to the indivduals concerned and their communities and that they would rather act that way rather than take responsibility for their actions but the reason they do this is because there are people who keep making excuses for them.
Anyone?
No thank you!! I got myself in trouble the last time I posted here.
"What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare." W.H. Davies
I know I said that I'd support the right of anyone to express any view however vile, but - frankly - it's a tough principle to live up to sometimes.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 08-03-2009 at 06:22 PM.
Now, we'll just doubt your opinions in case you're a plant.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
