Routine to display Information about input file
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Readibility of code was Re: Functional Programming book review
Next: (Usual) request to change subject - for "thread drift"
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jun 2010 12:44 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:15:29 -0400, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> When we start off with a premise >> that we accept as Truth, bending the facts to fit this premise is >> common, even with people who try hard not to do this. > >Sure. This does not make racisms or other group prejudices inherently >irrational, however. "Irrational" (used carefully) has a specific >meaning, and is not the litmus test for bad thinking or poor >intellectual work. Is bending the facts to fit a premise rational then? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: SkippyPB on 26 Jun 2010 12:57 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:04:50 -0400, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >SkippyPB wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:04:23 -0400, Michael Wojcik >> <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>> Isn't all racism "irrational"? >>> No; that's partly what makes it so dangerous. Much of so-called >>> "scientific racism", for example, is quite rational: it consists of a >>> set of premises, and conclusions formulated by the application of >>> logic to those premises. >>> >>> The premises are ill-founded, and the conclusions abhorrent, but that >>> doesn't make it irrational, however dangerous and wrong. >>> >>> "Rational" is not a synonym for "good" or even for "well thought out". >> >> BS. There is nothing rational about judging a person because they >> happen to have a different pigment in their skin than you do. > >I begin to suspect that you don't know what "rational" means. > >> At the >> core, all human beings have the same building blocks - they are all >> flesh and blood and sentient. > >I don't believe I've disputed that. > >> Racism is a learned behavior > >Or that. > >> and is illogical and irrational. > >I'm not sure you know what "illogical" means, either. > >Here's a trivial example of logical racism: > > All people of heritage X are inferior. > Person Y is of heritage X. > Person Y is inferior. > >See? A straightforward syllogism. Classic logic. The major premise >happens to be untrue (and the minor one is suspect), but neither of >those things make the syllogism malformed. It's completely logical. > >If you want it in formal notation, here's a predicate calculus version: > > \A p (Hx(p) -> I(p)) > Hx(y) -> I(y) > >Straight deduction by substitution. Completely logical. > >It'd be swell if all bad thinking were "illogical and irrational"; >that'd give us an easy moral test. But in fact not all bad thinking is >illogical or irrational, and there is no easy moral test.[1] And it'd >be swell if we all had free magical sparkleponies, too. But that don't >make it so. > >What's irrational is believing that the wrongness of an idea makes >that idea irrational. > Nice try. You can play around with all those words all you like but it doesn't make it right. The definition of irrational is: a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment All of those things describe racism which itself is defined as: a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one�s race is superior and has the right to control others. Any one endowed with reason and of clear mental coherency and with sound judgment could never come to the conclusion that one race is superior to another unless they were taught otherwise, brainwashed really. Hence, racism is an irrational belief. Illogical is defined as: 1. characterized by lack of logic; senseless or unreasonable 2. disregarding logical principles It is not logical to think or assume one race is superior to another. Hence racism is also illogical. And finally in your admittedly trivial attempt at a logical example, your first premise, i.e., all people of heritage X are inferior, is a false premise and therefore is not logical in itself. > Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "You have to learn to crawl before you can grovel." -- Art Grinath ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: HeyBub on 28 Jun 2010 17:20 SkippyPB wrote: > > What an example of pure ignorance. Sickle-cell anemia is not race > specific although it is rarely found in Caucasians. It is > particularly common among people whose ancestors come from sub-Saharan > Africa; Spanish-speaking regions (South America, Cuba, Central > America); Saudi Arabia; India; and Mediterranean countries such as > Turkey, Greece, and Italy. In the Unites States, it affects around > 72,000 people, most of whose ancestors come from Africa. The disease > occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every > 1000 to 1400 Hispanic-American births. About 2 million Americans, or 1 > in 12 African Americans, carry the sickle cell trait. True, but there could have been an African in the fuel supply. > > Tay-Sachs while predominant in one group of people can also occur in > others. Research in the late 20th century demonstrated that Tay-Sachs > disease is caused by a genetic mutation on the HEXA gene on chromosome > 15. A large number of HEXA mutations have been discovered, and new > ones are still being reported. These mutations reach significant > frequencies in several populations. French Canadians of southeastern > Quebec have a carrier frequency similar to Ashkenazi Jews, but they > carry a different mutation. Many Cajuns of southern Louisiana carry > the same mutation that is most common in Ashkenazi Jews. Most HEXA > mutations are rare, and do not occur in genetically isolated > populations. The disease can potentially occur from the inheritance of > two unrelated mutations in the HEXA gene. > > But whether one race or one group of people are susceptible to one > disease or another is no excuse to practice racism. It is a very lame > excuse at best . > Your points are well-taken, but the exceptions don't prove the rule. If a black presents in the emergency room with all the symptoms of sickle-cell (stroke-like paralysis, fever, swelling of hands and feet, etc.), it would be foolish in the extreme to give that diagnosis the same relative standing as if the patient was a Caucasian. As for "practicing" racism, I have no problem with it in principle. It is not the act of "practicing" racism [believing that some situations are race-specific] that is problematic, it is the RESULT of that practice that could be evil. If the emergency room doc treats for sickle-cell and the diagnosis was correct, his action was meritorious. If the emergency room doc declines to treat for fear of being called a "racist," great harm has resulted. >> Asserting that race, religion, ethnicity, age, or whether the >> red-headed beating victim is a step-child, has nothing to do with a >> presented problem is, itself, irrational. It is of distinct value >> that the human mind can consider the forest instead of focusing on >> the individual tree. >> > I'm not sure what you are trying to say here as it seems to be a > contradiction in what you stated in your previous paragraph. > I'm saying that a disregard for the race, ethnicity, heritage, age, or even religion of the patient is madness. To ignore these things, that may very well bear on finding a proper diagnosis, is negligent. To ignore them out of fear of being dubbed a "racist" is criminal negligence.
From: Alistair Maclean on 29 Jun 2010 09:11 On Jun 26, 5:57 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: > > Illogical is defined as: > > 1. characterized by lack of logic; senseless or unreasonable > 2. disregarding logical principles > > It is not logical to think or assume one race is superior to another. > Hence racism is also illogical. > There are aspects of race which make one race superior to another in specific circumstances. Consider the creation of melanin in the skin. In the tropics, in black people the existence of a high proportion of melanin protects against UVA and UVB damage which would result in melanomas in white people. In temperate regions, the lack of melanin in white skin allows for the easier creation of Vitamin D and therefore prevents ricketts in whites where darker skins obstruct the creation of Vitamin D and leads to a greater incidence of ricketts in black people. Such a small difference confers superiority on one race cf the other, dependant upon the environment. However, such a minor difference does not permit the racist extrapolation to one race being superior in all contexts and aspects cf the other.
From: Alistair Maclean on 29 Jun 2010 09:19
On Jun 26, 6:06 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: > > What an example of pure ignorance. Sickle-cell anemia is not race > specific although it is rarely found in Caucasians. It is > particularly common among people whose ancestors come from sub-Saharan > Africa; Spanish-speaking regions (South America, Cuba, Central > America); Saudi Arabia; India; and Mediterranean countries such as > Turkey, Greece, and Italy. In the Unites States, it affects around > 72,000 people, most of whose ancestors come from Africa. The disease > occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every > 1000 to 1400 Hispanic-American births. About 2 million Americans, or 1 > in 12 African Americans, carry the sickle cell trait. > Sickle cell anaemia is an adaptation confering some protection from malaria. Malaria was existent where white populations occured (even in England at one time) but was not the problem that it was elsewhere. So not race specific but because white populations were exposed to a lower incidence of malaria, the adaptation did not occur with white populations. |