Intoscience

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.

Ok I see your point, our arguments are aligning a little now. I'm a firm believer in people paying theirs dues, so no argument there. However, I was interpreting your argument as (based on your analogy), a bully is stealing your child's lunch money and because the said bully is from a specific group all the people in that group must be bullies so they should all be punished and pay for the bully's crime. . I'm always confused by your comments. I just see your argument as, your privilege is a result of crimes committed by your ancestors, therefore you should pay for those crimes. If this is your point then all modern people should pay for their ancestor's crimes then? So if we all pay who do we pay? I'm saying rather than tit for tat, lets just learn from our ancestor's mistakes and just stop. This may seem unfair, and maybe it is but when do you draw then line? Yet the constitution built by the bullies and oppressors is held in such high esteem in the US even today. Those people are long gone, dead and buried.

Ah... I see where you are going with this. You are basically saying I'm the beneficiary of the crimes of my forefathers. So now I should payback my gain. Interesting approach, one could apply this logic to all the activities of all our ancestors including invasions and conquering of countries etc... how much do you pay and where do you stop? Happy to do that if I know about and directly understand the value of (if any) my gain from the crime. Though one could argue that my payment is losing my family member to the jail he is sent to, or the embarrassment of, or stigma of, or the prejudice against me for being related to a criminal...

This is what I'm arguing, and though I see the point made by Phi and other members, I don't agree that affirmative action that goes beyond equal opportunity will solve long term issues. It will just appease one group and then cause disdain for another. At some point the only way to achieve this is by stopping and saying enough is enough, lets stop this pinball game and smooth it out. Someone somewhere will have suffered more than others, there's no way around it. But, we can stop now so that now and future generations suffer no more and that all are treated equal. Tit for tat is not an affirmative action, its a game of revenge that never really results in success. I don't disagree, though I would say its the government system that presides not the people who originally developed it. The current government should recognise and amend mistakes by changing the system accordingly. But changes should be made to smooth out the line. Actually, then we agree because this is what I'm arguing. I'm happy to pay compensation, but that payment should come at a cost to all not to one specific group. Though predominantly in western culture it was white people oppressing and slaving black people, it was not exclusive to. History shows many cultures in many countries, have conducted some sort of oppression, slavery and worse. All of modern society, all members of this society should pay the compensation to all those that have suffered in the past. Then all systems, across all cultures, should have a policy of equal opportunity no more no less. Also, from experience (my partner's family who are black, and by the way she totally agrees on this), in the society which we live, the most racial people tend to be black people. All of the racial tension between her family and mine originates from her family. This embarrasses her and upsets her deeply. Lets just stop and reset.

Sorry but that is a crock of crap. Your argument is that modern generations should pay back with interest, for past generation's mistakes/wrong doings. My argument is that modern generations should learn from those mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated. You are asking me to pay for a crime that my forefathers may have committed. Are you saying that all modern Germans should pay for the Nazi crimes committed during world war 2? Because this is how it sounds to me. This attitude sounds all rather vengeful, I wonder if this is the driving factor? You are focussing on one group that were persecuted and oppressed, which was disgraceful and should never be repeated, and I agree that some pay back is due. But history shows that this activity has been prevailing in many cultures over thousands of years across the world. Lets just stop, stop singling people or groups out. Skin colour, race, religion, gender personal preferences... aside, lets just provide equal opportunity for all people. Fine if the thief is the one doing the crime, lock him up and make him pay, whatever. But you are forcing his family, worse his community to pay for his crime. Nothing stopping asking the community to make a donation towards the victims, hell most would be happy to I'm sure. But forcing them to serve his sentence, reeks of revenge not a solution.

Mistakes should be corrected no one is arguing this. We are just questioning the methodology. It seems that in some aspects its like fighting fire with fire. I don't disagree with any of this, my question is around the methodology to correct the systems. The band aid you mentioned earlier is when the systems are made bias towards the disadvantage groups by disadvantaging the successful groups. This seems like a hypocritical tactic, that's all.

So each pirate has to be happy and content with their own lot, but also happy that each other member has been treated equally fairly?

Ah, a more simple approach needed then. A better trick would be a way in which each perceives they themselves have the best share.

Is your preference prejudice or have racial implications? The argument that I have witnessed by some people is that, even though your intent is not in any way this way, just the action of preferring one colour over another makes it so.

I'm not sure if there is one. I think there are 2 issues, first issue is, is there a system that produces definitive equal shares? The second issue is, does that system, even that which is definitive in quantity satisfy the perception of each and every pirate? Each pirate has to agree on the value of each item and that the value should match on each and every pick. Then each round should produce an equal quantity of items. Can this be done?

Agreed, IQ tests are designed to be a general consensus on a persons overall ability to process information (in short). Some people are just exceptional in one particular area and may then score lower in other areas, giving a lower overall score. Not really that useful when describing a persons' "genius" levels. I remember a college friend of mine who scored dreadfully on IQ tests but was an absolute whizz at solving murder mystery type problems. He would have made an excellent police detective! Sadly he passed away before he had chance to persue a career.

I prefer a white board over a black one. I can use multiple coloured pens on a whiteboard and you don't get that awful screeching noise whilst writing on one.

I think its an inevitable part of human evolution. The sensible and most likely approach would be slow integration. A.I should be an asset rather than a threat, both economically and socially. We have witnessed in our life times changes through technology, the introduction of the internet being one major example. then you can look at robots in manufacturing and other industries. The goal should be to free the world of poverty, reduce sickness and improve wellbeing for all. Reality, most likely, someone (maybe even A.I) will just get stinking rich/powerful and the poor will continue to be poor. I would support the following as priority Basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter Reduction in diseases and ill health Utilities such as electricity, water, internet, etc All levels of education (as much as a person wants to learn

This is where things get muddled Rather than attempting to find a fair solution, by fair I'm referring to a solution which accommodates all, allowing an equal opportunity. Some subsets get shoe horned into categories which then in turn discriminates against others within that category. This is why the Para athletic events works, people at a physical disadvantage are pitted against each other rather than against people who do not share the same disadvantages. But the attitude is shoe horn the small subset into a category that they are then going on to dominate and everyone else (the vast majority) should suck it up. This is damaging to all parties involved, all it does is promote further un-acceptance and separative attitudes, rather than encourage equality and acceptance. I for one would much rather see subset categories to allow people of similar calibre to compete against each other than watch one group dominate all. The attitude that its about the taking part that counts not the winning, well that's a cop out. What is the point of "competition" if there is no goal to aim for? Competition is healthy, in most it promotes progress. We as humans have the advantage that we have the intelligence to subset competition to make it an equal playing field so all can participate, all have the chance of being winners. But don't you see that the persecution is encouraged more so from allowing the "small subset" a clear advantage over their fellow competitors? Don't you think that these people feel less valued when they are singled out for all the wrong reasons? I want to encourage people to be able to be who they want to be without the fear of persecution. Anyhow, this thread is going off track now, so I'll leave it at that.