Chefelf.com Night Life: Geography Failure - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Crappy News Forum

This is a REPLY ONLY form. Only Crappy News Moderators can post news topics here. Anyone is free to reply to the news topics. It's the Crappy News Forum, where everyone's a winner!

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • Last »

Geography Failure part 1485993830928

#76 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 19 October 2007 - 07:11 PM

I'm fine with using all those descriptors, except I think "race" needs some serious improvement. Honestly, why bother calling someone by their race when it tells you so little about them anyway? I figure just go with their nationality and be done with it.
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#77 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 20 October 2007 - 02:57 AM

Nonsense! I could call you American and not know whether you were black, white or hispanic. Nationality is just as limited and arbitrary as you say race is. The only difference being you can write a test and get a new ID card to change your Nationality, but you're never changing your Race (Don't tell Michael Jackson).

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 21 October 2007 - 03:51 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#78 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 20 October 2007 - 03:22 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 18 2007, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it wasn't. That's not how the word "theory" is used scientifically. Again, "Number theory" was never used to postulate that their may be numbers. "Theory" denotes a discipline, a body of knowledge. BUT! Many words have more than one meaning. Those letters in that order may also be used to mean "hypothesis," but you'll never find a science text that mixes the two up. For instance, as much as religious types would like it otherwise, there is no "Hypothesis of Evolution."


I believe in logic. The fundamental flaw in our discussion here is that the English language has been 'evolving' (read: corrupted by lazy bastard) since long before either of us were born so it makes it hard to establish a solid argument on a foundation of wet concrete sludge.

the word 'theory' is more often than not used as 'hypothesis' to draw undue credibility to 'ideas'
the rest of the time it's used as componential separating category from 'practical'. As in theory=notes on something that has a physical or 'practical' aspect.

Evolution is a concept. A concept with some very credible aspects, some less than credible aspects, then a lot of ideas based on imagination. Some things are based on carbon dating which is apparently accurate up to 800 years ago or something. Which, in my humble opinion, is useless. As any projection back is subject to heavy corruption due to unknown circumstance and change of circumstance but apparently we don't pay any credence to that sort of thing because the only unknown worth considering is that which scientists can be bothered factoring in. i.e. We assume that the measurement of age is accurate because doing so correlates what we want to believe but ignore that factors may have differed because it challenges our 'theory'. We assume that this fragment of skull the size of a coin make this clay built projection of homo-habilis accurate because it's what we want to believe. etc.

Please don't get defensive about this, I'm not attacking the theory of evolution, merely using it to make a point about clarifying my opinion of 'theories' and it helps because it's a popular and well known one which cut's down further digression. (which we've totally failed at thus far).

Theory is a wonderful thing but in many cases it does in fact mean 'incomplete collection of data used to establish a concept'

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 18 2007, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, I only asked because you don't like racial groupings to be based on Geography. Yet you allow "Caucasian," which was created when it was hypothesised that white people evolved in the Caucasus, a geographic region. "Caucasian" is not some obscure scientific term, you see, yet you seem willing to allow it and have used it yourself, while at the same time you object to using "Asian" to denote anything other than continental nationality. In my example, anyway, you'd be talking about people not living remotely near the Caucasus whoe ascestry was also not Russian, but German. Yet you'd let us call them "Caucasian," while disagreeing with the idea that an American man, whose father and family line as far back as he could tell was from Nigeria, could call himself "African-American." According to you, he's just "American," and if he likes, "Black."


He can call himself whatever the fuck he wants. But if he has an American accent I'll call him as such. what I address his as heavily depends on context. to me he is 'African', he is 'Nigerian', he is 'American' he is 'black'. People can be more than one thing but you shouldn't have list them all to keep a few people happy. It's all about context.

'Caucasian' is a word that is used to mean white people. I say white. I don't actually use the word unless its brought up first, so when I do use it is in that the context of strictly meaning white.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 18 2007, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So naturally I put it to you that you don't have a consistent set of rules, but rather a series of knee-jerk over-reactions.


No, you insult me sir. and if it weren't a $3000 fare to Canada I'd challenge you to a duel. You know me better than that surely. IT sounds like you have no respect for my opinion at all or where I’m coming from.

I do, honestly, take offence to that.

I've tried so hard to convey my point here about a rather complex issue, that has been confused by your rather loud neighbours to the south, so I'd appreciate a slightly less hostile interpretation of my motivation.

I’m just trying to undo some damage done by the PC monster that made things worse.

I’ll elaborate and spell check in a bit, I have to go out to dinner right now.


to an European restaurant. tongue.gif


EDIT: Japanese restaurant was booked out, so we're going to a spanish one now, which king of screwed my joke.

This post has been edited by barend: 20 October 2007 - 03:53 AM

0

#79 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 20 October 2007 - 11:32 AM

Good point about being called American - but it doesn't really tell you any less than calling someone "Asian," either. I probably should have said "ethnicity," not "nationality." Word mix-up on my part. Unless you're just describing someone and ethnicity isn't an issue or you don't know it, in which case I don't have a problem saying "he had really/medium/kinda dark/light skin, blonde/black/whatever straight/curly/nappy hair... Looked like he might have been from somewhere in Asia..." etc. (Now don't twist that and say I'd say a black man looked like he was from somewhere in Africa. I'd call him black, as that's a descriptor, unless I already knew he had problems with that word describing him.)
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#80 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 21 October 2007 - 04:35 AM

If you call some one asian then you know they have slanted eyes and yellow skin. It's not like you can't come up with a mental picture of it.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#81 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 21 October 2007 - 03:50 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Oct 20 2007, 03:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
'Caucasian' is a word that is used to mean white people. I say white. I don't actually use the word unless its brought up first, so when I do use it is in that the context of strictly meaning white.

Except that you brought it up first.

If you want to debate the theory of evolution on the notion of carbon dating, you'll find that carbon dating has little to do with evolution, and is more of an anthropological thing. Also, its inacuracies, brought about by variances in the levels of atmospheric carbon-14, have been worked out and its limitation now is more the scope of its usefulness (which is more like 60000 years, not 800), while radiation dating has all but completely replaced it. Anyway, you want to fly off half-cocked and uninformed on that subject, then find the appropriate thread. I tell you that evolution may have some talking points, but there are no legitimate scientists (the college of Creation Science doesn't even own a damned microscope) who speak of evolution as anything other than a fact. Evolution is fact, just like the theory of gravity. But anyway take it somewhere else.

Sorry to hear that you don't like the evolution of contemporary English, but since you're using it, I take that with a grain of salt. We'd all be uncomfortable trying to speak in the Old English of Beowulf, or even the Modern English of Shakespeare. But I don't blame any confusion here on language, but on the fear of people simply to call a spade a spade (pun intended of course). A lot of the problem with discussions of race is that they get weighed down with PC garbage, so that you get legitimate sociologists actually trying to claim that "race doesn't exist." You want to claim that you are trying to "undo" the damage done by PC Liberalism, I respectfully disagree with you. After all, you don't even want words to describe racial traits, and would rather we just talked about people in terms of what country they're from (I guess you prefer Nationalism to Racism, but I'm promoting neither here). I'd like to see a PC Liberal trying to describe a stranger to a police sketch artist. "Well he was tall, and had on a blue J Crew jacket, black and white high-tops, he had dark hair, ummm."

If you don't like "African" to be the word to describe black people whose ancestry is African, then go ahead and not like it. If you'd prefer "Black," you might confuse people who think that Blacks in Central America are fundamentally different. They might prefer "Carribbean," and you can take your argument to them about how a Black man born in China should exclusively be called "Asian" and nothing else. But when you do that, I will call you pretentious and accuse you of knee-jerk Liberalism, and I don't really care if that makes you want to hit me from 3000 miles away. I find the claim that you are offended laughable.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 21 October 2007 - 04:01 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#82 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 21 October 2007 - 04:09 PM

Which is why I changed the word "nationality" to "ethnicity," explained I accidentally got mixed up and put in the wrong word, and also explicitly said how I would use skin colour, facial features, etc.

And I don't know if you think I argued this or if you are talking about other sociologists but I never argued that "race doesn't exist," just that it is a sociological construct (as in, it's based on factors that societies determine - look up how Brazilians view and define race and you'll maybe see what I mean).
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#83 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 21 October 2007 - 08:43 PM

Civ#2. Nothing in your post suggested we're in the same conversation. I am 'offended' that you have assumed something so far from what I was originally trying to say no matter how many ways I assume it, and that every time i bring a comparison you analyse and argue about it until it's a completely different discussion.

I wasn't claiming that evolution is based on carbon dating just bringing up as an example of a component of unstable cannon in an incomplete body of evidence that is commonly considered fact in every estimation.

The word Asian should be used to describe anything that has anything to do with Asia and not be limited to China, Japan, and Korea. I'm sorry that people are having a hard seeing why I would think that is counter productive. As for describing people I usually just think of how they look and unashamedly put it into words. 'Asian' hardly describes someone. I don't care if you get a mental image from it, it's retarded. You can't look Asian. It doesn't actually make sense.

And yes I use words that now have a different meaning to their original use. I'm not trying to stop evolution of the language. But this misuse of the word 'Asian' is hardly evolution. It would be like saying 'American' now only describes east coast states of the US.

Also who gets 'hit' in a duel? Further more who takes a sentence involving 'duel' and 'sir' to mean i seriously want to hit you.

This post has been edited by barend: 21 October 2007 - 08:51 PM

0

#84 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 22 October 2007 - 02:22 AM

Barend, so when you're describing a Cambodian guy, do you say "tan skin, slanted eyes, etc" and dodge the idea of race entirely, or do you say, like anyone else "he looked Chinese.?" If the former, then yeah, you're using words that may require a follow-up question, as a reaction to PC Liberalism. You are allowing society and a fear of looking "racist" to limit your ability to communicate. "Asian" would communicate a good part of your description to just about anybody, and no, they'd never guess you meant Turkish or Indian.

Say what you like, but the word "Asian" means pretty much the same thing everywhere. It is not the same as the use of the phrase "from Asia." I would think that a fellow as familiar with porn as you are would have ceded that point by now.

Spoon, I don't know what you're trying to say, that race does exist but also that it is entirely a sociological invention? If that means what it sounds like, then I disagree. Race exists, and would exist even if we were separated at birth and incapable of forming societies due to absolute non-contact like the people in the second Asimov robot novel. Sociology hasn't got anythig to do with it; it's a genetic invention.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#85 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 22 October 2007 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 22 2007, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Barend, so when you're describing a Cambodian guy, do you say "tan skin, slanted eyes, etc" and dodge the idea of race entirely, or do you say, like anyone else "he looked Chinese.?" If the former, then yeah, you're using words that may require a follow-up question, as a reaction to PC Liberalism. You are allowing society and a fear of looking "racist" to limit your ability to communicate.


Firstly I don't care about looking racist. I'm not, if some idiot thinks I am that's his problem not mine. I do not live in fear of public opinion.

Cambodian's look a little different to Chinese. they're usually a little darker for starters. I’ve actually described people as Cambodian looking. I might extend to 'Laotian'

Chinese and Vietnamese and Japanese tend to have their own distinguishing features that separate them although it's hard to tell with some people.


QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 22 2007, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"Asian" would communicate a good part of your description to just about anybody, and no, they'd never guess you meant Turkish or Indian.


In England (were this language originates) if I said Asian people would assume Indian as well.
In Australia (where America's fashion has corrupted some of the language) Your average person might be inclined to do so as well.

Popularity, however, doesn't make that any less retarded. The majority have never been the most intellectually discerning group.


QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 22 2007, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Say what you like, but the word "Asian" means pretty much the same thing everywhere. It is not the same as the use of the phrase "from Asia." I would think that a fellow as familiar with porn as you are would have ceded that point by now.


Yes it means 'pertaining to the continent of Asian'

In fact dictionary says:

Asian:
adj. Of or relating to Asia or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
n.
1. A native or inhabitant of Asia.
2. A person of Asian descent.


Oh wait you mean, what you use it for... then by 'everywhere' I think you mean 'North America'. North America is hardly an authority on the language. Thanks to it's monopoly on mainstream media and pop culture the rest of the worlds had to endure quite a few drastic changes to the English language. But this one is just silly.



And very, very WRONG.


Rape is quite popular, should we legalize it?
0

#86 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 22 October 2007 - 07:19 PM

(now that's a kneejerk response! smile.gif)
0

#87 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 22 October 2007 - 07:55 PM

I was going to say something else, but I pooped my pants. Now my pants are all poopy. Back to the showers for me.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#88 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 23 October 2007 - 12:32 PM

I've lost what you guys are trying to say. Can you sum up in point form what your main points are?

Seriously, totally lost.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#89 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 23 October 2007 - 03:28 PM

I have poop in my pants.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#90 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 23 October 2007 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE (Jordan @ Oct 23 2007, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've lost what you guys are trying to say. Can you sum up in point form what your main points are?

Seriously, totally lost.


"Asian" is a geographical adjective not a visual one. Describing someone as "Asian" in appearance is like describing someone as "Southern-hemispherical" in appearance or describing someone’s voice as "very purple"


and just because it means something to 2% of the worlds population doesn't mean it's right.

A friend pointed out last night that the US makes up for like 2% of the worlds population, so we really shouldn't let them sway too many global decisions. (especially when 20% of that 2% can't locate themselves on a world map, apparently)


I guess no one likes to be told how to describe "colour" by a country that can't spell it.

This post has been edited by barend: 23 October 2007 - 06:50 PM

0

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size