On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

        It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a
    non-faithful sample of a population is to bias any possible
    prediction. Why are you focusing on some partition of some
    equivalence class: "white, green, pink, yellow, purple, black,...
    or "latino, texano, letivo, ... or what ever some finite list you
    can come up with to be "a faithful sample" of Reality? I am not
    interested in any proclamation by a person or whatever that cannot
    possibly be true!


I don't understand the complexity. The US is the richest country because it had vast natural resources, slaves and immigrants to extract them, and relatively no real political threats on any geographic side. Is that not true? The beneficiaries of that wealth are almost exclusively white Europeans with many customs and values in common. Many who did not benefit from that prosperity were also white Europeans but disproportionately they were not. Is that controversial?

Hi Craig,

What about the Chinese, or, the Icelanders or the natives of Bora Bora, are they exempt from a debt of social justice to some group of people currently living merely because they had ancestors that had vast natural resources, slaves and immigrants to extract them, and relatively no real political threats on any geographic side. It depends of the measure of "vast". What difference should it make where one is from or what one's particular ancestors are when we can arbitrarily define some past behavior of that class of people to have been criminal in a retroactive way? If one looks hard enough, any class of people has been victimized by some other! This fact makes the entire thesis of social justice <https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=thesis+of+social+justice&oq=thesis+of+social+justice&gs_l=hp.12..0i22.2231.2231.0.6976.1.1.0.0.0.0.446.446.4-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.kJVtTtFZ3rU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.eWU&fp=dbbeaa135e1ac0b0&bpcl=39967673&biw=1120&bih=596> fall apart at the seams.

Or are you saying it's true but meaningless?

I am saying that it is "not even wrong". What I am saying is that arguments that assume any sort of revisionistic or reverse determinism must be treated very carefully. They are allowed under very special circumstances, such as those that Mitra talks about, but in general situations, not at all.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to