Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About naitche

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1817 profile views
  1. Chicken or eggs? Or is fish back on the menu?
  2. To seek the potential of its being. Response.
  3. The value of Domestic Dogs lies in their commonality and purpose to a diverse human environment, Not in a statehood unequal to that. Putting Form before Function.
  4. Neither. Logic and application of biological law. If you create an organisation for the benefit of the community, then marginalise that community to their accreditation, then that memberships purpose is corrupted. From benefiting the community, to imposing 'standards' of acceptability and recognition. Certification in this instance would be for the purpose of standardising responses, making them conditional. Not response, Conditions of response. You can be accredited as say, a Mechanic- but that won't have the same effect because accreditation is not designed to keep machine
  5. Yes to the 1st line. Please No! To the 2nd. At risk of taking this off topic, Formalized qualification for Dog ownership will have the opposite effect to promoting responsibility, with fewer qualified to lower standards. Familiarity is needed for responsibility, not standardised responses to a diverse environment. (Dog ownership and husbandry) You can't legislate your way to responsibility, Only reduce responses available with out cost out weighing their value. More often than not, the standards proposed make assumptions of dogs, and their environments causing both to
  6. Cancel culture seems to be the chosen expression of Critical theory for many. It looks like a zero sum proposition, to expect 'improvement' from reduction of what you have to work with. Purpose becomes secondary to arbitrary 'qualification.
  7. Yes. So you see how that aids extremism, and polarisation when identity is politicised. When characterisations and spread sheets decide where a person must stand, 'as opposed to' Humanity as a whole. How acceptance of a Characterisation reduces the diversity and response- ability of an assumed identity. Imposes additional qualification. To reduce diversity.
  8. I don't defend the violence occurring on either side, but but pretty sure 'cancel culture' and de-platforming played a huge role in what occurred at the Capitol, and will likely provoke more unrest and polarisation while it continues. If perspectives are denied as illegitimate, not to be voiced, there is going to be mistrust of the institutions allowing that to happen.
  9. I.Q tests are arbitrary, in deciding Human value potential. So is Race, and intelligence. We have diversity. I can't see any value to such studies other than to discredit that.
  10. The language behind Critical Race Theory tells us that characterisations of human conditions are essential for equality. We must be responsible for actively upholding that ideal in all facets of our lives. Refusing space, standing or recognition of value to those who refuse to recognise in-equality. Characterising that as a 'set apart' from Human values on the basis of racism or bigotry, in broad terms that affect every area of our lives.. That assigns a negative or contrary value to a broad range of people who may display 'Characteristics' Language is altered to reflect the
  11. Thank you for your help sifting.
  12. Yep. Just some times you have to sift through a lot of shite to find them.
  13. Yes. By reducing obstacles to qualification in Education. Not by singling out who should benefit more based on characterisations of their diverse conditions. That redistributes the obstacles, with out understanding the effects that might have, but doesn't create any greater potential for humanity as a whole. You are not qualifying Equality. You are qualifying more Humans, for education.Their equality doesn't come into it. Thats assumed. Better than assuming racism or bigotry for the discrepancies, as characterisations of human conditions demands.. Diversity is the
  14. You are still measuring equality, whether of races or opportunity. And making characterisations of broad and diverse conditions to do so. And because of that, the language used by many often signals the reverse of your intent. Racial or cultural headings are their own spread sheet.Their use is fine in anti discrimination documents, To discount their characterisation as anything other than equal in Humanity. But when we use language in a way that characterises race, gender or colour as 'oppressed', and characterises the 'privileged' as oppressors, You are discrediting one s
  15. Thanks for the clarification. As I read the definition though, I don't see a conflict, or anything to say that an act of discrimination must always involve injustice. It means, You can't measure the equality of a sum with out 1st dividing its parts. Equality need some thing the be measured against. it requires an opposition, and that has to be found before the measurement can take place. I don't understand why thats confusing. Its the mathematical explanation as I understand, it can't be done. If thats wrong, I'm happy to hear why. From a biophysical perspect
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.