 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
abc, any chance of you at ESA-stowe next season?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
abc, Happy knitting! I've enjoyed indulging in amateur logic with you. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
slikedges, I profoundly disagree with you because - I think - you are confusing political correctness with basic decency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Hurtle, in what way?
| comprex wrote: |
| Hurtle the thesis was that 'ranking' is automatic and natural for any activity, anywhere. If, as you say, ranking some things is beyond the pale, do we learn not to rank them or do we learn not to act on the consequences of the ranking? ? |
Surely it's more of a question of what comprex pointed out earlier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, You appear to be implying that the ranking of every situation/skill/characteristic is human nature and therefore always to be tolerated. I don't agree, hence my contention that comprex's bracketing of
| Quote: |
skin colour, athletic skill, tackle size, sudoku solving times,
|
was unacceptable. Your post implies, to me at least, that you see no difference between these four things, when it comes to the acceptability of ranking them. Just because the black man doesn't know that the white man thinks he (the white man) is superior is, in my view, irrelevant: it is not decent of the white man to be thinking such thoughts. And many white men do, indeed, not think such thoughts. I could have misunderstood you/imputed more to you than you actually meant; if so, I apologize.
I'm really sorry, but I fear I have to withdraw from the fray at this point. Thanks for the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, don't be ridiculous
Last edited by After all it is free  on Sun 15-07-07 20:30; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
slikedges,
| Quote: |
don't be ridiculous
|
Thanks for your illuminating response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can only rank things that are better or worse. Like skiers. You can't say whether blue or green are of themselves a better colour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
slikedges, you said:
| Quote: |
Anything that can be attractive or 'plain' can be ranked
|
I find blue a more attractive colour than green. Some people find white men more attractive than black men. You appear to be contradicting yourself: one post says they can be ranked, the latest says they cannot.
I do not deny that skiers can be ranked. I have even gone so far as to say they should be ranked.
Please let me outahere! I have got SO much to do! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Hurtle, no contradiction - there is no consensus on the ranking of colours hence they can't be deemed better or worse. Attractive and 'homely' are absolutes. Don't want to know any more about your tastes in men, however I am fascinated that you seem to think of blue of itself as a superior colour to green. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| comprex wrote: |
Hurtle the thesis was that 'ranking' is automatic and natural for any activity, anywhere. If, as you say, ranking some things is beyond the pale, do we learn not to rank them or do we learn not to act on the consequences of the ranking?
|
That was not quite the thesis.
It was that ranking is automatic and natural for any activity for which you are aware of the possibility of being "better" or "worse". That last part is important.
The reason ranking on things like skin colour is "beyond the pale" is that it is considered beyond the pale to think that one skin colour is any better than any other skin colour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
alex_heney, Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
alex_heney, that's only a little bit circular. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Whether we should rank or not, whilst clearly a matter of some fervent opinion is actually irrelevant because it's a natural part of us so we'll do it anyway. The thing is that imho it's the insecurities of some, and in others their perplexing need to rush to the defence of these poor dears, which makes ranking unPC, even when the ranked party is quite uninjured/unoffended. Even if ranking is at least in part about ego, so what? What's wrong with celebrating success, or feeling the satisfaction of achievement? And those who might be too sensitive, too fragile and wish to be shielded from the spur of failure or reality of mediocrity can simply avoid knowledge of it.
I'm sure 
), and some people claim not to rank much of anything. Self-evidently lotsa people rank skiing for lotsa reasons. But most won't admit it 'cos they're yella. And those who are forced to will only admit to PC reasons. Excellent - same result as last time then. I'll leave this subject for another couple of years. It'll be an interesting measure of whether society moves on. 
