Intoscience

I agree, probably unattainable in reality. But this should not prevent us from trying and at least starting somewhere on the right footing.

Honestly, there is no point in responding to you. We have clearly different views on the subject (even though we want the same eventual outcome). No matter how I respond you will twist my comments, and throw it back at me. But here goes, There you go my bold, skin color is used by racists to degenerate and demean (all good so far). So it is used as an attributing factor - "feature as characteristic" to discriminate against. Yes I've stop using fighting fire with fire, a better analogy is using water to douse a chemical fire. I'm proud to be white, I'm proud of my heritage, I love my skin color, can this imply I consider my self as part of a superior race? This is exactly how racism came about (in the context of this thread). Can we just stop this nonsense, and see people as people regardless of their color, weight, height ethnics...

You are the one who spends time arguing the definitions, constantly, across all subjects. You often interject with such, either for attention, obfuscation or to divert the discussion. I was merely returning the favour. I agree with Marcus. Lets just get back to the OP. Nope, I just like to use a patch that stays on for continued use

Unless there is a poisonous critter stuck in there, that if ingested would kill him in the most horrific painful death. I guess we can abstract as much as we like. The reality is there are certain things that are for the good of all people. Like saving the planet, avoiding large meteor strikes etc... but when it gets down to morality and other more finely detailed things, then well, this is where it gets debatable. Conflating the 2 is probably my mistake, but is also the mistake made by others. Reparation using subtle revenge style tactics changes things.

My father supports Stoke City, because he played for them in the under 21 squad, his mentor and hero was Stanley Matthews. He quit to go earn more money working down the pit. I went on to support Port Vale instead, my son supports Man United.

As iNow states, you need to be specific regarding the item you want to polish and to what finish. Then you can opt for the best (usually the easiest that produces the desired results) option for your item. There are also differing grades (quantity ratios etc... of steel, chromium, nickel & other minerals) of stainless so some will polish easier than others.

What is good for one man may be bad for another. That is the point of our arguments. Define a good man (person). It's not about an ideal outcome, we all know this is unattainable. For starters what would be an ideal outcome for 8 billion people? It's about using the right tools, the right approach, one or many which do no further damage. Chucking a few dollars at every homeless person you meet may seem like the kind thing to do, but does it solve homelessness? But don't you see, by not ignoring color for the purpose of retribution is a false virtue? Yes it is (my bold) skin color is one of, if not the most fundamental attributing factors that invokes racism. By choosing not to ignore it only further invokes the very thing you are trying to dispel. Cut it which ever way you want to, even positive discrimination by skin color, only compounds the problem further down the line. It's like trying to put out a chemical fire with water. Just to be clear, the idea of ignoring skin color has nothing to do with being noble or virtuous, it couldn't be further from this premise. It's about recognising people as people, all equal. Isn't that what we all want?

Yes, I think we (all of us) want people to be treated equally and injustices compensated for. I tend to be in the school of thought of make it simple where possible. So yeah, I'd agree something maybe better than nothing. But to rid the system of racism the system has to stop discriminating by colour or race. Whether this is achievable in reality and still able to get satisfactory results begs the question. Honestly I doubt it, there will always be victims of change. Yeah I'd vote for it sure. But in my experience people (politicians) who claim to give you the world end up selling you a rock to chuck instead.

Good luck with that one.

I'm not sure but it seems like you are confounding mathematical concepts with physical objects. For instance you have been given examples of mathematical concepts based on infinite sets. In physical reality however the idea of "infinite number of objects" might not be possible. Mathematics can lead to infinities when modelling physical reality. One example being the singularity predicted at the centre of a black hole this brings into question the possibility of physical infinities. However, space itself maybe infinite, it exists (we are part of it) but it may not end. In which case there would be room to fit an infinite number of objects, in which case we may assume but not confirm that they "all" exist without end. Counting them "all" would take an infinite amount of time though, so in this instance there would be no way to confirm there is an infinite number of them. Mind blowing stuff and a subject that is discussed profusely across all science/math forums.

On the contrary, this is not what I'm saying. I fully agree past injuries and existing wounds need to be dealt with. My argument is around the suitability of the prescribed treatment. What bandages are to be used, what medicine needs to be prescribed and what post treatment should follow to continue to mend old wounds, rid out infections and ensure no more are inflicted. I see your argument as - one medicine, one band aid, one treatment fix all aimed specifically at one group. Which may inadvertently cause further infections not just for those who have old/existing wounds, but also for those which may become susceptible to future ones as result. In my opinion (maybe idealistic) would be an more considered approach aimed at all wounded both past and present, but also any possible side effects of the treatment. Ideally by using the correct band aid for each individual wound, using medicine that is not likely to cause side effects for the patient or others. Followed by treatment which vaccinates against or better still eradicates this infectious disease for all people (racism).

I think there are 2 schools of thought that are butting heads to try and get the same outcome with differing solutions. One school of thought in simplified terms is proposing that people in a group (identified by a certain skin colour) have been discriminated against because of their skin colour and therefore all persons with that skin colour should be compensated accordingly. So in essence, the argument is that, they where discriminated against by identification of their skin colour and so therefore should be compensated by the same mechanism - Discrimination between groups by skin colour both negatively and positively. On the counter to this there is an acceptance that people were discriminated against by their skin colour but also many other people in many other groups have been discriminated against by race or colour. That these people should be compensated for this, not by positive racial or colour discrimination but by induvial assessment which does not use colour/race as a discriminative process. One could argue that the outcome of the counter view would overwhelmingly be discriminative anyway by colour, since the vast majority of those compensated would be from a certain group defined by skin colour. But the argument is that to cease discrimination by virtue of skin colour one must change the systems operate in a way that ceases to use skin colour or race as a mechanism for group identification. So I think this is Jez's point with the statement - "stop seeing people as black or white". Now, I get both arguments, my feelings and morals tend me towards sympathy and understanding of retribution (I'm a eye for an eye type of person in general). But my logical side understands that to eliminate a problem completely, one must cease using mechanisms which may inadvertently compound the problems even further so they may not continue into the future.

I'm just trying to get my head around what we are agreeing & disagreeing on. Points we all seem to agree on. People have been negatively discriminated against because of their skin colour These among many others currently and throughout history have been unfairly treated due to race People unfairly treated should be compensated in some form Points we which there seems to be disagreement on. Current and historical data surrounding the levels and directly to who the unfair treatment has occurred and not been compensated for. Level of compensation (who gets what and what is fair) At what cost to who and how should compensation be paid (who takes responsibility) What would be appropriate justice (at what point would a satisfactory conclusion be acceptable) How, when and by what mechanism/system to stop all racial discrimination should be conducted There maybe more and finer details, but we can all agree that racism should stop and where possible those unfairly treated compensated accordingly.

I interpret Jez's posts as the opposite... that racism, or rather skin colour, is often used to muddy things. But hey ho... I'm more than happy to stand corrected if otherwise.

When we are wrong or when we don't agree or align with your point of view? (Just to be clear, Personally I don't ignore people and I don't give negative reps even if i find a post offensive or distasteful, obviously what you do is your prerogative).

I would argue that you need to cut the water supply off first. This would the initial stop. Then I would argue that you can patch the hole short term. This would be well defined easy to fix compensations. Then I would look at swapping the pipe out for new. This would be long term law changes and possibly more complex compensations.

Is there a question in there?? It's not true that all the research is focussed on migrating to another planetary body. Protecting and making the Earth sustainable for all life for as long as possible is a bigger priority. The resource & technology to enable humans to spread out even within our own solar system is still way off, let alone any nearby habitable planets within other systems.

So there is no inherent mechanism for personal survival in humans, it depends on your culture? And so even if your priority is towards the survival and prosperity of others do you not think that there is some self preservation built into that also? If a person priority is the survival and prosperity of their society then being part of that society by default means they are also taking care of themselves. In fact this is the whole point of the argument! Survival and prosperity of a society as a whole is far more beneficial (in general) than as an individual. Simply because this will help to ensure the welfare of your future descendants. However your argument seems to be - lets rob Peter to pay Paul then a while later we will rob back from Paul to pay Peter. Then it gets muddy cause - hang on a minute we robbed Patrick to pay Peter, But Patrick's forefathers where robbed by Paul's forefathers, who where robbed by Pete'rs forefathers, who where robbed by Patrick's ancestors. But Paul's ancestors are related to Peter's ancestors and the ancestors of Patrick's ancestors were related to Paul's ancestors, who robbed Peter's ancestors ancestor's... This is a good point. My partner (who is "black") agrees with this. Her argument is that using skin tone as a mechanism for group distinction should be left in the past. That all transgressions, discrimination both negative & positive made against any people due to their skin tone should be eliminated now across all cultures and nations. Retribution for those currently directly affected may be reasonably straightforward since there should be some form of measurement to work with to arable some form of compensation. But for those indirectly affected, well where do you start and where does it end? Am I a potential indirect victim of racial abuse that was conducted towards my partner? (just to be clear she hasn't experienced any). After all If that abuse meant that my partner was victim to negative discrimination then this would definitely indirectly affect me.

No one is arguing that black people were treated unfairly, as Migl pointed out unfair treatment has not or currently is not exclusive to one specific group. None is arguing whether the people who have suffered as a result should be compensated. The argument is around what system would be fair compensation without reverting to the same tactics which caused the unfair treatment in the first place. You can wrap it up in pretty paper any how you like but discrimination against one racial group to compensate another is still racism. You often hear racial activists making statements that would not be tolerated if roles were reversed. I watch a black lady racial activist state clearly and openly "all white women are evil". Imagine if a white woman was to say "all black women are evil"! Jez mentions about clearly quantifying the level of compensation due and to which people its most deserved, and was shot down. I think we all agree that racism is a crime and those that suffer as a result should be compensated. All agree that it has to stop and systems need to change to allow this to happen. There is bias, and I think our biases are what are provoking us to butt heads. I said it before and I stand by my view that the only real immediate solution is to just stop and reset.

Is that not a natural bias, inherent in all (most) living things?

In what form against who? What would be considered satisfactory justice?

Past or present? where not other ethnic minorities also negatively impacted? I think what Jez is trying to point out is that how can those persecuted seek fair retribution, without bias.

I was just stating that this was how I had originally interpreted your argument and that now I see your point and agree with it in most part. There is no purposeful obfuscating, I had mis-interpreted your original argument and ran with this interpretation until it later dawned on me. The point that's in discussion at the moment is around retribution. We all agree that stopping needs to be done. What we may not agree on is what/whether there should be some form of re-payment and if/how this should be conducted. I guess then it's more about the level of injustice, what is most important now.

Racism in the context of this thread came about mainly due to the slave trade. People with darker skin than Western Europeans settlers were deemed to be inferior and thus valued less, so oppressed with reduced human rights. They where treated appallingly, often worse than animals. The problem is not around pointing out the distinction, but rather the negative connotations of it. No different than pointing out that a person is fat, thin, tall, short, old , young, bright, slow... etc. What we need to stop doing is making any distinctions as a negative or rather one which "de-values" a person. We are all different, but should be treated all the same - equally. This is what dimreeper is suggesting, yes all, you are here thus your linage has survived, which most probably means that at least one of your ancestors did something to aid that survival which would not be agreeable by modern day standards. This is what dim is saying and you should pay yours and your forefather's dues .

I am a homeowner, I bought the property from my parents who bought it from my father's parents who bought it from their parents who sought permission to build a house originally on unclaimed land next to a railway as my great grand parents where the local station keepers. So there is definitely some family heritage involved. However you are just reiterating my point, that all modern people are the beneficiaries of some gain by some means sought by our ancestors that is not agreeable. Its just that some may be more recent and more on topic than others.