[trudawg]

Originally Posted by kcam213

Just to add my own perspective of this...

I would say forming an opinion is to decide whether or not you agree or codone a situation. It is indeed a judgment. I think all "opinions" are judgments... whether you voice your opinion or keep it private... it is still your judgment.

Conclusion on the other hand, to me means, to explain the reason WHY a situation exists, to place blame on an individual or circumstance.

You can have an opinion, for instance "Detroit traffic is very bad" as opposed to a conclusion, "detroit traffic is bad because the drivers in detroit are careless drivers".

the traffic could be bad because of excess of cars, bad highway design, ill timed traffic lights... the other one is placing blame on the drivers without regard to other reasons.

I think this is what trudawg meant is don't draw conclusions on a person without walking a mile in his shoes... meaning look at all possible reasons for a situation instead of just going the easy way (and possibly faulty way) and just blame the closest person.

Just my 2 cents to possibly shed some light on your question... "What's the difference between a conclusion and an opinion?"

couldn't have said it better myself!!

[Huntsville_secede]

Originally Posted by arpschneider

Slavery ended over 120 years ago

Yes it did but blacks were continually discriminated against and setback and we really didn't see much of a change until the 1970's and 1980s this did not happen immediately after slavery ended. Its not far back as 120 years, a lot of people lived through the days of having police dogs sicked on them, not being able to go to the same schools as whites, or even use the same bathroom, etc. These kind of things happened in the 1960s you can't expect everyone who lived through that to just change how they feel cause you want them to.

[Cliffie]

Originally Posted by Huntsville_secede

Yes it did but blacks were continually discriminated against and setback and we really didn't see much of a change until the 1970's and 1980s this did not happen immediately after slavery ended. Its not far back as 120 years, a lot of people lived through the days of having police dogs sicked on them, not being able to go to the same schools as whites, or even use the same bathroom, etc. These kind of things happened in the 1960s you can't expect everyone who lived through that to just change how they feel cause you want them to.

But those feelings and prejudices were set in cement -- for both blacks and whites -- long before the Sixties. White flight is one of the ways we keep all those fears in place, by never meeting people of other races and finding out how little real difference there is between us.

[kcam213]

Originally Posted by Huntsville_secede

Yes it did but blacks were continually discriminated against and setback and we really didn't see much of a change until the 1970's and 1980s this did not happen immediately after slavery ended. Its not far back as 120 years, a lot of people lived through the days of having police dogs sicked on them, not being able to go to the same schools as whites, or even use the same bathroom, etc. These kind of things happened in the 1960s you can't expect everyone who lived through that to just change how they feel cause you want them to.

absolutely right!

My mom who is still alive and live in Ohio, witnessed the aftermath of a lynching that occured when she was a little girl, may 7 or 8. She bears no ill will toward white people, nor did she raised her children to harbor hatred.

This attitude exemplifies HER good character... not that of white people.

not everyone who has experienced similiar terrifying experiences will have that same good character. Some black people took the seeds of hatred that was thrown at them in the 60's and grew it inside of themselves. And they have passed that hatred on to their offspring.

Some white people have inherited this hatred, other have cultivated it from bad experiences from black people who spew this hatred.

Sorry mess this country's race relations is. It won't get any better because neither side want to admit that it is possible their hatred is not justified.

So some white will continue to run for the hills, and then due to decline in the neighborhood because of lack of city services, police protection and yes the hooligan antics of a few hoods, will cause some blacks to run for the hills as well. And the cycle continues.

This is one of the reasons you see a boom in areas like Grand Rapids and a decline in the larger urban areas like Flint, and Detroit. Eventually, GR will intergrate as well....
When does it end? Can't we all get along???

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by American Aries

Do you want to know what is "childish romanticism?" Your assertion that any person, regardless of race or background, can just look past daily prejudice and create that good 'ol American business with gumption! Please. Most likely, you have lived a privileged life. And yes, being born "white" automatically gives you privilege over any other race.

Originally Posted by Huntsville_secede

... you can't expect everyone who lived through that to just change how they feel cause you want them to.

These posts demonstrate why "flight" by a segement of a population is, indeed, "right."

At some point, you have to pull up your big boy/girl pants and take responsibility for your life. We all have things that go wrong. I don't run out and blame the world because one person out of five or ten did something bad to me. So, why in the world would I want some crybaby for a neighbor who can't get it through his/her head that the world isn't a nice place and you need to buck up and move on?

Quit crying.

The first post asserts that various black successes are exceptions... as if to say "you can't be a real black unless you're a failure." Exposing the other side of that elitist coin, she requires that for me to have a non-elitist opinion, I must have been a beneficiary in some way beyond my control. (FYI: Raised poor w/out a father, thank you.)

The second poster, demands that you feel sorry for people... "Oh, you can't have high expectations of us... we're only black folks who've had it so hard..."

That is why flight by responsible people is right... because this perspective is unstomachable.

I'd like to ask the question also implied by the thread title: Is it a moral requirement for responsible people to suffer association with those who make excuses? Why?

Originally Posted by trudawg by proxy

Conclusion on the other hand, to me means, to explain the reason WHY a situation exists, to place blame on an individual or circumstance.

You can have an opinion, for instance "Detroit traffic is very bad" as opposed to a conclusion, "detroit traffic is bad because the drivers in detroit are careless drivers".

the traffic could be bad because of excess of cars, bad highway design, ill timed traffic lights... the other one is placing blame on the drivers without regard to other reasons.

What about if you were the person in charge of traffic flow and you were required to do something to improve traffic? Would you form a theory/conclusion/opinion (without a working definition, which appears to me to be changing with each post, none of those words mean a thing. So, just pick the best one that suits your needs.) and make adjustments to the traffic control/system?

Of course you would... and that's why a discussion like this is valid. (Invalidating the thread is what started this because "no one can know another's experience.") Our laws are a reflection of our beliefs about the world. Whether we like it or not, each of us has a responsibility to understand, the best we can and make decisions from that understanding. To assume that our opinions are invalid from the start is self-destructive... naive.

[kcam213]

Originally Posted by One Thousand;3473789


What about if you were the person in charge of traffic flow and you were required to do something to improve traffic? Would you form a theory/conclusion/opinion (without a working definition, which appears to me to be changing with each post, none of those words mean a thing. [B

So, just pick the best one that suits your needs.) and make adjustments to the traffic control/system?[/b]

Of course you would... and that's why a discussion like this is valid. (Invalidating the thread is what started this because "no one can know another's experience.") Our laws are a reflection of our beliefs about the world. Whether we like it or not, each of us has a responsibility to understand, the best we can and make decisions from that understanding. To assume that our opinions are invalid from the start is self-destructive... naive.

But that is my point. You will look at all factors involved in contributing to the bad traffic and find a way to resolve the conflict.

You seem to propose that if you have an intersection that has a lot of accidents, that instead of looking at the factors that may contribute to the high rate of accidents, you just jump to the conclusinon that drivers in this area are incapable of driving, so let's just close down this intersection.

No, you look for the CAUSE not the SYMPTOM. Yes, it will take some patience, dedication, and wisdom to set aside your emotions and try to determine the CAUSE and make an accurate conclusion. That would require that you actually STUDY and assess the problem... or as Trudawg suggested, "walk a mile in their shoes".



I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand that you really should fully assess the problem BEFORE you diagnose (i.e conclude)...(medicine 101)

~~~Just further clarifying the difference between opinions (which you are entitled to and are never wrong or inaccurate) and drawing conclusions (which should be based on facts are therefore sometimes inaccurate).

[kcam213]

Definition of conclusion:
Any inference or result of reasoning.

>>>>>>>Defintion of reasoning:
thinking that is coherent and logical

Defintion of opinion:
An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. ...

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by kcam213

But that is my point. You will look at all factors involved in contributing to the bad traffic and find a way to resolve the conflict.

My point is that if time is of the essence-- which it always, ALWAYS, is-- you do the best with what you have.

Originally Posted by kcam

You seem to propose that if you have an intersection that has a lot of accidents, that instead of looking at the factors that may contribute to the high rate of accidents, you just jump to the conclusinon that drivers in this area are incapable of driving, so let's just close down this intersection.

I think "avoiding that intersection and letting them kill each other until they extract their heads from their rectum" would be more accurate. Wouldn't you say that's more accurate?

Originally Posted by kcam

No, you look for the CAUSE not the SYMPTOM. Yes, it will take some patience, dedication, and wisdom to set aside your emotions and try to determine the CAUSE and make an accurate conclusion. That would require that you actually STUDY and assess the problem... or as Trudawg suggested, "walk a mile in their shoes".

If you review this thread, TD was actually saying that whites can't understand.

Originally Posted by kcam

I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand that you really should fully assess the problem BEFORE you diagnose (i.e conclude)...(medicine 101)

I don't know anything about medicine except that it ain't right. However, I think it's safe to assume that if you go into the emergency room with something that looks like it's about to kill you,k the doctor is going to use his best judgement and do what he thinks is best without waiting for the results of tests.


Why didn't you answer my question? Seriously. It's the same question as this thread is based on, just phrased differently. Are certain individual obligated to stay in an environment they deem inconsistent with their values? Why?


Edit: Regarding your second post. An opinion is a conclusion when based on reason. Something that is reasonable isn't necessarily a fact because reason only refers to the logical path that is followed... not the falsifiability of the premissees or conclusion.

You see? The whole conversation was jibberish.

[kcam213]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

I think "avoiding that intersection and letting them kill each other until they extract their heads from their rectum" would be more accurate. Wouldn't you say that's more accurate?

Very inflammatory statement. I am disappointed that you would take that point of view.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by kcam213

Very inflammatory statement. I am disappointed that you would take that point of view.

Suspend your disappointment just long enough to respond to this... if you'll not respond to my now repetitive question about the moral obligation of staying amongst individuals with contrary views.

Are you suggesting that an individual who knows a given intersection is dangerous should continue to use that intersection when the factors that control the dangers there are beyond his/her control? Are you saying it's inflammatory to come to the conclusion that those individuals are in control of the safety of that intersetion and also have the choice to abandon it?