psa: be cautious of absolutes

[And Step]

I am always cautious of people who label themselves scholars. Scholars are mostly responsible for a lot of the confusion and conflict that exist among people.

That statement is hardly revelatory. It is pretty much understood by intelligent people that when describing events that general attribution is acceptable and not blanketing. People always speak in collective terms anyway. I have yet to hear "some Germans" when people speak of the Holocaust. But it understood that not all Germans were supportive(even though most did nothing). I have yet to hear "some Japanese" when speaking of the attack on Pearl Harbor even though it was a few Japanese.(The rest were at home). Matter of fact, FDR's broadcast he specifically states " The Japanese have just attacked Pearl Harbor". They don't say some Iraqis, Afghanis, etc..

Just another one of those special rules that apply to Black people exclusively, when"some" white people and house niggas that love them, want to try to escape the historically unjust relationship. Hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[Hyde Parke]

The only thing i would be cautious of, is the man telling me what i should be cautious abt, esp when speaking in relative terms. I can see things for myself. Obviously there is danger in attaching yourself to any specific thing without regard to entirety. Following some other mans words without fully understanding the underlying reason for them in the 1st place, is probably one of the most dangerous things there is imo.

 

[oliverlang]

I am always cautious of people who label themselves scholars. Scholars are mostly responsible for a lot of the confusion and conflict that exist among people.

That statement is hardly revelatory. It is pretty much understood by intelligent people that when describing events that general attribution is acceptable and not blanketing. People always speak in collective terms anyway. I have yet to hear "some Germans" when people speak of the Holocaust. But it understood that not all Germans were supportive(even though most did nothing). I have yet to hear "some Japanese" when speaking of the attack on Pearl Harbor even though it was a few Japanese.(The rest were at home). Matter of fact, FDR's broadcast he specifically states " The Japanese have just attacked Pearl Harbor". They don't say some Iraqis, Afghanis, etc..

No, but you do USUALLY hear the Nazis, or the Imperial Army, or Taliban...rarely is it reported in general terms as Japanese, Germans, or Afghanis - especially when your dealing with responsible journalist or journalism. Also, when did FDR become the model of right and wrong? We've both heard presidents say outlandish and foolish things in the past, including FDR. I mean, he is a politican and would have a motive to say THE JAPANESE.

Just another one of those special rules that apply to Black people exclusively, when"some" white people and house niggas that love them, want to try to escape the historically unjust relationship. Hypocritical if you ask me.

So, according to your logic, it's acceptable to say something like...i don't know...blacks like basketball, watermelon, and fried chicken? When you allow comments like this it just perpetuates the hate, stereotypes and generalizations - especially when announced around children. If you are with a young impressionable mind, and you see a person doing something foolish it's not wise to say something like, "white people" or "that's just how black people are" because it perpetuates these stigmas that this child will associate with a particular race for possibly the rest of his life.

I agree with the threadstarter and I don't think it's acceptable. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with taking sound advice from another person.

 

[Hyde Parke]

I agree with the threadstarter and I don't think it's acceptable. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with taking sound advice from another person.

Thats not sound advice its an attempt to push off ones own idea of what others should think.

I do not need to be told i am hungry

I do not need to be told i am in pain

I do not need to be told i am sleepy

I could go on, and on.

Also, it appears you're not agreeing with the threadstarter, you are agreeing with some incomplete, broad statement the threadstarter alleges was told to him. Hand me down information. Which is dangerous, plain and simple.

 

[oliverlang]

Thats not sound advice its an attempt to push off ones own idea of what others should think.

I do not need to be told i am hungry

I do not need to be told i am in pain

I do not need to be told i am sleepy

I could go on, and on.

Also, it appears you're not agreeing with the threadstarter, you are agreeing with some incomplete, broad statement the threadstarter alleges was told to him. Hand me down information. Which is dangerous, plain and simple.

Based on your response, I don't think you understand what the thread starter is trying to say.

How is it dangerous to not lump all people under one umbrella? How is it dangerous not to be prejudice? How is it dangerous not to judge one by their exterior, and instead on their virtues? In actuality, the opposite would be/is the most dangerous advice of all...which it seems you would subscribe to if you disagree with the thread starter's advice.

 

[alissowack]

I think we may need to be cautious of those who use absolutes for hidden agendas as well. Chances are someone is telling the truth about something. They just may not have your best interest in mind.

 

[ItzGravitation]

i knew Hittler wasnt that bad of a person as history makes him seem.

 

[Hyde Parke]

Based on your response, I don't think you understand what the thread starter is trying to say.

How is it dangerous to not lump all people under one umbrella? How is it dangerous not to be prejudice? How is it dangerous not to judge one by their exterior, and instead on their virtues? In actuality, the opposite would be/is the most dangerous advice of all...which it seems you would subscribe to if you disagree with the thread starter's advice.

i understand just fine. How dangerous is it to follow anyone's words without understanding, completely, the meaning or implications behind them? How dangerous is it to follow anything at all? The statement was ambiguous and incomplete to begin with, which is just as bad as the actual statement itself. It can be interpreted in many different ways to many different readers, only the one who made the statement understands truly what his intent is, what you take away from it is your interpretation, which may or may not be the true intention of the speaker.

 

[oliverlang]

i understand just fine. How dangerous is it to follow anyone's words without understanding, completely, the meaning or implications behind them? How dangerous is it to follow anything at all? The statement was ambiguous and incomplete to begin with, which is just as bad as the actual statement itself. It can be interpreted in many different ways to many different readers, only the one who made the statement understands truly what his intent is, what you take away from it is your interpretation, which may or may not be the true intention of the speaker.

I can dig that. However, it's not as ambiguous as you are making it out to be. You disregarded the point, and responded based on a false implication because I don't see where he said you must follow everything someone else says without understanding.

What is there not to understand about speaking in absolutes? What is there not to understand about generalizations? What is there not to understand about saying everyone that is [insert race] behaves a certain way is more than likely inaccurate? Based on your comments in the Arizona thread, it appears to me that you would actually agree with his original statement and point of the thread.

 

[And Step]

No, but you do USUALLY hear the Nazis, or the Imperial Army, or Taliban...rarely is it reported in general terms as Japanese, Germans, or Afghanis - especially when your dealing with responsible journalist or journalism. Also, when did FDR become the model of right and wrong? We've both heard presidents say outlandish and foolish things in the past, including FDR. I mean, he is a politican and would have a motive to say THE JAPANESE

FDR being right or wrong is not the point, which you totally missed. The point was people generalize all the time and it is common sense that you are not neccesarily talking about the whole group. This is a ploy that people use to deflect attention from the real issue, which is usually fucked up behavior.

So, according to your logic, it's acceptable to say something like...i don't know...blacks like basketball, watermelon, and fried chicken? When you allow comments like this it just perpetuates the hate, stereotypes and generalizations - especially when announced around children. If you are with a young impressionable mind, and you see a person doing something foolish it's not wise to say something like, "white people" or "that's just how black people are" because it perpetuates these stigmas that this child will associate with a particular race for possibly the rest of his life.

See above quote about deflecting attention. My contention wasn't about stereotypes it was about behavior and deeds.

I agree with the threadstarter and I don't think it's acceptable. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with taking sound advice from another person.

Your 1/3 right.

 

[theillestrator]

why do some of you just have to be difficult? it's a pretty simple concept. shit, if a crackhead told him, it's still a pretty easy message to understand.

 

[oliverlang]

FDR being right or wrong is not the point, which you totally missed. The point was people generalize all the time and it is common sense that you are not neccesarily talking about the whole group.

Just because people do it all the time doesn't make it correct. Maybe, it's because people do these things the world is in the state that it is in. Anyway, you're the one that used FDR as an example, not me. lol.

 

[oliverlang]

why do some of you just have to be difficult? it's a pretty simple concept. shit, if a crackhead told him, it's still a pretty easy message to understand.

Word. I wonder the same thing sometimes.

 

[Alkindus]

4 those with insight±

Moses once walked through the kingdom, one day he saw a man on his knees shouting: God I love you, please God take this gift, please God embrace me . Moses was furious, walked towards the man and cursed him, beat him shouting: thou shal not use symbols and adress god etc the way you do! and threw the poor man out of the kingdom. When everything was said and done, God showed up to Moses and said: what did you do? there was no man closer to me than him, superior words are not given to all of you. (those interested, it's a jallal ad din mevlani 1000 year old poet).

comunication is key, some are not able to comprehend things with such sophisticated speechcraft, some might speak retarded if you will, but still understand the same things the sophisticated one understands, just with basic speechcraft abilities. Do not feed and or give to much in words.

the threadstarter seems to embrace and preach critical thinking, self empowerment, never think absolute because nothing truelly is. who cares about where he got that from? in this forum loaded with absolute thinking regarding religion and socalled 'race', threads like these should reign supreme because it preaches truth by promoting the open mind. if you forget absoluteness, what is religion and what is race?

 

[Hyde Parke]

why do some of you just have to be difficult? it's a pretty simple concept. shit, if a crackhead told him, it's still a pretty easy message to understand.

If its such an easy concept, then what is the need for the advisory? When you are hungry, do you need someone to remind you that you are hungrry. When you burn your hand, do you need someone to remind you it is in pain? No you dont, its common sense. So if im wearing a black shirt and someone says to me "hey you're wearing a black shirt" im going to look at them like they are stupid, and then tell them so.

 

[Hyde Parke]

I can dig that. However, it's not as ambiguous as you are making it out to be. You disregarded the point, and responded based on a false implication because I don't see where he said you must follow everything someone else says without understanding.

What is there not to understand about speaking in absolutes? What is there not to understand about generalizations? What is there not to understand about saying everyone that is [insert race] behaves a certain way is more than likely inaccurate? Based on your comments in the Arizona thread, it appears to me that you would actually agree with his original statement and point of the thread.

Oliver, my problem is not in what was said, it is in the reasoning behind the statement. Telling anyone what or how they should think is just as dangerous as the message itself imo.

then the "so called scholar" adds in at the end

"there are very few absolutes and fewer people to identify them."

 

[Alkindus]

If its such an easy concept, then what is the need for the advisory? When you are hungry, do you need someone to remind you that you are hungrry. When you burn your hand, do you need someone to remind you it is in pain? No you dont, its common sense. So if im wearing a black shirt and someone says to me "hey you're wearing a black shirt" im going to look at them like they are stupid, and then tell them so.

90% of the worlds pop is stupid. Everyone believing in the very concept of 'race' is stupid because they lack common sense and any form of self reflection and respect. As you see this forum is loaded with people who believe in race. So how many people truelly have common sense? why hate on those that preach truth? is it because they preach(the obvious?)

 

[And Step]

Just because people do it all the time doesn't make it correct. Maybe, it's because people do these things the world is in the state that it is in. Anyway, you're the one that used FDR as an example, not me. lol.

This is not about right or wrong. This is people trying to dodge the issue of peoples deeds by being slick with language. No sir. I could care less of generalizations. People try to stifle legitimate criticism with that bullshit.

 

[Hyde Parke]

90% of the worlds pop is stupid. Everyone believing in the very concept of 'race' is stupid because they lack common sense and any form of self reflection and respect. As you see this forum is loaded with people who believe in race. So how many people truelly have common sense? why hate on those that preach truth? is it because they preach(the obvious?)

lol, are you serious? you are making absolute statements this very moment in your statements. yet you agree with the "so called scholar's" words.

this is why i stand continuous in stating people have no idea what they are talking about, especially when following someone elses words or preachings and defending it as if it is the gospel.

 

[Alkindus]

lol, are you serious? you are making absolute statements this very moment in your statements.

this is why i stand continuous in stating people have no idea what they are talking about, especially when following someone elses words or preachings.

Samething can be said for you stating the obvious, you need to look beyond words to truelly understand absoluteness(thinking), if you did not get the point I made about common sense than what did you understand? Absolute thinking has nothing to do with the words u use.