usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Evidence does not support?So you say/said, but the evidence does not support your assertion.No obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills and intellectual honestlyI think it is pretty obvious what my point was, the minorities in this exercise were portrayed in a more favorable light than the whites, especially with the classification of the construction worker as racistWhat constitutes your measure of "all?" The choices in the scenario offer three white folks, two of whom can reasonably be assumed to be productive, and all three of whom must be assumed to be upstanding.
I know what upstanding means, but I have no idea what you may think it means, OP-er, but regardless of what you think, I have news for you:
The fact that you deem as not "upstanding citizens & productive members of society" the three white folks in the exercise says more about your own preconceived notions of what it means to be "upstanding citizens & productive members of society" than it does about whether any of them are. Accordingly, I kindly suggest you invest some of your time taking the course offered/suggest at one or more of these sites:
- "Racist and white" and "upstanding and productive member of society" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are racists who hold jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to their "whites-only" community. Indeed, I know some whites in the U.S. who have never encountered or spoken to a black person, but they have seen black people, mostly on television and in movies.
- "50 years old, white and being a Catholic priest" is also not necessarily mutually exclusive with "upstanding and productive member of society."
- If one is "20 year old, white, female, pregnant, has a two year old son and on welfare," one is less obviously a productive member of society, but one can very well be upstanding. To the extent such an individual economically contributes more to society than she takes from it, she too is a productive member of society.
I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but "being on welfare" does not mean that one's sole means of support is public assistance. It means that one receives some public assistance. Indeed, the majority of people receiving public assistance have a job too. (See also: Welfare In America: Most Low-Wage, Full-Time Workers Use Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Analysis Shows)
I'm sure at this point you doubt the merit of my suggestion. Continue reading...
- Oxford's Free Course Critical Reasoning For Beginners Will Teach You to Think Like a Philosopher | Open Culture
- Critical Thinking: Where to Begin
- Creative and Critical Thinking Training Course
- The 10 Bona Fide Best Sites for Sharpening Your Critical Thinking Skills - Mission to Learn - Lifelong Learning Blog
- Critical Thinking Courses | Coursera
- Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving | Learning Tree International
I have no doubt that some parents did indeed make such a claim/inference. Some children are cursed with myopic mental midgets for parents. Kids are thus cursed mainly when they are stuck with parents who make no effort to see, think and examine things beyond their initial suppositions about them, or, to put it another way, their parents think as a child or adolescent would. Doing that is a manifestation of willful ignorance, and it's something parents should know better than to do.
According to the article you cited, "Parents say being forced to pick people to save based on their race and sexual identity is not a good lesson to teach." Well, that's just about the most irrelevant and sophomoric conclusion one might reach regarding the assignment. Yes, race is provided for each of the individuals.
From where I stand, it's clearly an exercise for teaching kids to refrain from jumping to specious conclusions or making/acting on hasty generalizations, specifically the kind that manifest themselves as or rely upon stereotypes about race in their decision making. The pedagogical point of the exercise is to provide a framework the teacher can use to catalyze instruction in that regard and about clear and rational/critical thinking.
What makes it clear the preceding is accurately adjudged as the points and approach of the exercise? The fact that, of all the traits provided, race is the only one that does not inherently have any relevant impact on whether the person is "worth" saving, from a practical and rational standpoint. For example, the construction worker could as well have been black or Latino, but his strength is of equal use no matter his race. The only relevance race has is its impact(s) on the thinking of one who thinks it makes a difference. In other words, race and whatever choices/leanings one makes/has pertaining to it are "all about" the person who allows race to be a factor, and not about the people of a given race.
To "succeed," the students must do one of the following:
- Point out the insufficiency of reasoning attendant with making choices about people based on arbitrary traits provided and that don't have anything to do with a person's fitness for a given task or with the likelihood of one individual's superiority (based solely on the information given/available) over others in a given situation.
- Articulate a choice (or approach to "narrowing the field") that is based on a line of sound critical reasoning, which necessarily must derive either (1) from practical exigencies that may be soundly inferred from the situational information given, or (2) from applying the tenets of a well developed system of moral philosophy/ethics (i.e., not because someone is a member of a given race) and that uses the intrinsic characteristics of the individual and situation as the basis of the decision. For example:
- Choosing the construction worker because it can be inferred that he is likely the strongest, and his strength may be essential after the bombing is over, perhaps to open the door to get out the shelter if it's blocked.
- Choosing the guy in wheelchair because choosing him is an act of kindness that, but for it, the man would surely perish.
- Choosing the doctor because her skills will be essential for sustaining everyone's life during and after the conflagration.
Obvious to you and other narrow minded individuals, well, that may be possible. Mother Nature has a way of providing individuals with strengths in one area to make up for shortcomings in others. For instance, she gaves dogs a much better sense of smell than cats, which have far better hearing than dogs. Pachyderms take a good deal longer to gestate and reach full maturity after birth, but once (if) they do, under normal circumstances, they live by and large unburdened with fear of predation and for a very long time and t hey get to pass on experiential knowledge gained over decades. It may be that among homo sapiens, the ability to mind read is the gift given to compensate for one's being too dimwitted.to see beyond what lies at the surface of things?
Hell, I even said as much in the OP
And look at some of the foolishness you mentioned in your OP.
Do think the bomb shelter can be reasonably assumed to be like Norad's facility, or the former Presidential nuclear war sae site, in the heart of a mountain and that has acres and acres of free space? Though it's possible the priest may be a child molester, it's almost certain he's not an exhibitionistic child molester. Just how much private space do you think there is in this bomb shelter? Did you, in your own mind, inject into the scenario that the group of you would never leave the shelter, or that you'd be the only humans to have a bomb shelter?Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off
Weird that you say that because it is obvious you can read
Furthermore, this thread was more of a troll than an attempt at a serious discussion, and much of my op was written in attempt at humor
And it is pretty obvious, something that most people would pick up on
Lastly, I flat out said that the labeling of whites as less than desirable, coupled with the classification of minorities in more respected roles demonstrated an agenda
So, you either are not very bright (which I don't believe) or you are being purposefully obtuse and argumentative...
this thread was more of a troll than an attempt at a serious discussion
I will take your word for that. Bye.
