27 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasno they are entirely inappropriate, for I am a human being and resent being labelled like a jam jar!
I label you as christian. I label you as a fundamentalist. I label you as a creationist.
Don't you think these labels are appropriate for you?
27 Jun 09
then Swedes, Danes and Norwegians are all the same, being labeled Scandinavians! When one draws or paints a watercolour are they all the same as everyone else's concepts, well are they? No, then what you are saying is an utter one dimensional view point and waves like a huge banner above very type of prejudice imaginable, now get this, everyone has there own evaluation and perspective, everyone is unique, everyone is not a jar of jam, no one should be labeled.
27 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't mind being labelled a Scandinavian, because that's what I am.
then Swedes, Danes and Norwegians are all the same, being labeled Scandinavians! When one draws or paints a watercolour are they all the same as everyone else's concepts, well are they? No, then what you are saying is an utter one dimensional view point and waves like a huge banner above very type of prejudice imaginable, now get this, everyone has ...[text shortened]... on and perspective, everyone is unique, everyone is not a jar of jam, no one should be labeled.
But everyone not wanting to be labelled "Those who doesn't like to be labelled!" has one quality in common, namely they who don't want to be labelled.
You are one of "Those who doesn't like to be labelled!", you've said it yourself.
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes, but are you claiming then, that under the label of Scandinavian, all Scandinavians are the same? this is simply not very scientific, for it is an inaccuracy, for even within Sweden, there is a cultural difference from North to South, East to West, is there not, thus it clearly exposes the follow of labelling, in that it is wholly inaccurate!
I don't mind being labelled a Scandinavian, because that's what I am.
But everyone not wanting to be labelled "Those who doesn't like to be labelled!" has one quality in common, namely they who don't want to be labelled.
You are one of "Those who doesn't like to be labelled!", you've said it yourself.
27 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow does:
yes, but are you claiming then, that under the label of Scandinavian, all Scandinavians are the same? this is simply not very scientific, for it is an inaccuracy, for even within Sweden, there is a cultural difference from North to South, East to West, is there not, thus it clearly exposes the follow of labelling, in that it is wholly inaccurate!
1, a group of people X are labelled as having property Y in common
Imply:
2, people X are “all the same” (generally)
?
-it can only imply that they have property Y in common but NOT that they generally have all other properties in common!
For example, to label Scandinavians as being “Scandinavian” does not imply that they all share the same culture etc; it only implies that they are all from Scandinavia ( which doesn’t say much ).
27 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt says something about me, not all.
yes, but are you claiming then, that under the label of Scandinavian, all Scandinavians are the same? this is simply not very scientific, for it is an inaccuracy, for even within Sweden, there is a cultural difference from North to South, East to West, is there not, thus it clearly exposes the follow of labelling, in that it is wholly inaccurate!
You being one of "One who doesn't like being labelled" doesn't say more than you don't like being labelled, nothing more.
But you like labelling others, does this make sense?
27 Jun 09
1 edit
ok, you go to the supermarket, you pick up a product, its says red wine, are you gonna buy a product that is so indistinctly labelled, no you are not, for you do not know the variety of grape, nor the region, nor the year of produce, nor the country of origin, nor the percentage of alcohol, it simply states red wine!
you shall go to the manager of the supermarket and say, dear sir, why is this bottle of wine so indistinctly labelled, i can tell nothing from reading it, he will say, but its good enough for general purposes, and you will say, yes, but i have people coming for dinner, and i want something to complement the dish that my wife has prepared, he will say, sorry a label is a label and you will go away dismayed that the label was was so inaccurate to have been of no help, thus it is with all broad generalisations through the process of labelling.
28 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNever seen such a wine so poorly labelled. Don't buy it. Chose another one better labelled.
ok, you go to the supermarket, you pick up a product, its says red wine, are you gonna buy a product that is so indistinctly labelled, no you are not, for you do not know the variety of grape, nor the region, nor the year of produce, nor the country of origin, nor the percentage of alcohol, it simply states red wine!
you shall go to the manager ...[text shortened]... ave been of no help, thus it is with all broad generalisations through the process of labelling.
But still, it's a red wine.
In this short posting you label a store as supermarket, you label a fruit as grape, you label a man as manager, You even label the information of the wine as a label, like every store is a supermarket, every fruit is a grape, every man is a manager, every label is as porly describing a wine as the one you saw. You simply cannot oversimplify objects and people like that. You are generalizing.
You tell us a story like it always is like this, it isn't. You are generlizing, labeling this kind of problem as significant, it isn't.
So what do you mean by labeling me a Scandinavian, without any further information? Not much. But some.
Do you really ,my christian friend, my fundamentalistic friend, my creationist friend, as an important problem, or are you just unseriously joking trying to stir up feelings? You failed. I just label you as, unserious.
28 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes I am a ragged clown that you shouldn't pay any mind to, Fabian, no doubt, but the argument is serious, for if you label someone, as you have me, a creationist or a Christian, it not only is a broad generalisation and thus but by its very nature it is nondescript, now, you must agree, that this is rather strange, for the intended purpose of giving a label is to identify, however, as we have seen, its not a very satisfactory one.
Never seen such a wine so poorly labelled. Don't buy it. Chose another one better labelled.
But still, it's a red wine.
In this short posting you label a store as supermarket, you label a fruit as grape, you label a man as manager, You even label the information of the wine as a label, like every store is a supermarket, every fruit is a grape, every t unseriously joking trying to stir up feelings? You failed. I just label you as, unserious.
now take the scenario of the manager, we term him a manager, why because that's what he does, he manages the interests of whatever agency he is attached to, however, when you apply the same reasoning to a creationist, you would be led to think , thats what he does, he creates, thus, it may be said of you (although i know not yet you're style of play), that you as a chess player are a creationist, if we are to adopt such reasoning, could i not? also proper noobster, as a drummer, i would have to ask myself, what does he do in order that I can label him? he is a drummer, he creates audible rhythmic patters, therfore he must also be a creationist, is it not so?