Only 2 kinds of people. - Page 3

Osterbaum · 07-26-2004, 06:39 AM

Well I'm now saying we should always while talking take in account all the other groups etc. We can offcourse talk about those who are dead and those who are alive and not add those who are morally sick in to the group or anything like that.

Jagos · 07-26-2004, 10:28 AM

The easiest thing to do is categorize then discriminate based on that.

It's harder to try to fix problems based on a different viewpoint.

Thaumaturge · 07-26-2004, 11:34 AM

True, but don't forget that there are some categorisations that are useful. To take a somewhat trivial example, the categorisation of "pilots" and "non-pilots" is very useful in choosing someone to fly an aircraft.

That said, the main problem in this field is the incorrect use of categorisations. Most often it takes the form of applying a categorisation to a problem that is unrelated to the problem. To extend the pilot example, it would be invalid to choose someone to fly an aircraft using the "male" and "female" categorisation (i.e. sexist).

Ganurath · 07-26-2004, 11:46 AM

I don't see why people categorize. Somebody with a habit of categorizing sees a member of a certain group or class, I see someone who may or may not claim membership of said category who displays their habits. Ethnicity, gender, age, these are just fields to identify people, not to judge them. Categorizing different individuals is an unneccesary practice that has seemed to become common in modern culture.

Thaumaturge's point about piloting is inherintly flawed. Let us say there are no pilots except for one who is knowingly intoxicated. However, there is a college student who is not a pilot who, since his father has a private airplane, would be more competent than the drunken flyer. This situation may be narrow and hypothetical, but it does provid an example of categorizing by titles may diminish the more competent candidate.

Peo · 07-26-2004, 03:38 PM

I would like to again point out the fact of...."alive or not alive" now theres a categorization for ya, no getting around that one.

Ganurath · 07-26-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peo

I would like to again point out the fact of...."alive or not alive" now theres a categorization for ya, no getting around that one.

Tell that to Cheney and Elvis.

Bezo · 07-26-2004, 06:17 PM

This may have already been addressed (I didn't read anything but the very first post

()) but it's a fundamental human quality to divide the whole world into two very distinct groups. They are, however all based on one:

Us and Them.

Or sometimes, if the person has no friends:

Me and Them.

That's what it all boils down to, essentially. Everyone wants to be different so they have to find out what sets them apart from the other six and a half billion people out there. We all do it. Some people just do it too much.

The Mirror Emperor · 07-26-2004, 08:53 PM

The group Us and Them? Here's my perspective:

Don't think of them as Them. Think of them as Us and treat them as such.

Unfortunately not too many people in the world believe that....

Ganurath · 07-26-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bezo

It's a fundamental human quality to divide the whole world into two very distinct groups.

That's why I'm glad I'm not human. I'm close, but the psychological, metabolic, and skeletal differences are suffice. God and I are not very proud of you humans. Granted, I'm dividing based on species, but that division what set in place by the laws of physics and nature.

Archbio · 07-26-2004, 09:15 PM

I do not like your style on that one, Muktar.

Quote:

Everyone wants to be different so they have to find out what sets them apart from the other six and a half billion people out there. We all do it.

But once you're aware that everybody is actually different in some ways from everybody else, it kind of becomes: me and them and them and them... And so on.

07-26-2004, 06:39 AM	#21
Osterbaum The revolution will be memed! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: FIN Posts: 5,967	Well I'm now saying we should always while talking take in account all the other groups etc. We can offcourse talk about those who are dead and those who are alive and not add those who are morally sick in to the group or anything like that. __________________ D is for Dirty Commie!

07-26-2004, 11:34 AM	#23
Thaumaturge Magikoopa Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,767	True, but don't forget that there are some categorisations that are useful. To take a somewhat trivial example, the categorisation of "pilots" and "non-pilots" is very useful in choosing someone to fly an aircraft. That said, the main problem in this field is the incorrect use of categorisations. Most often it takes the form of applying a categorisation to a problem that is unrelated to the problem. To extend the pilot example, it would be invalid to choose someone to fly an aircraft using the "male" and "female" categorisation (i.e. sexist). __________________ Mwa ha ha ha ha!!!! ahem. sorry.

07-26-2004, 11:46 AM	#24
Ganurath Kinky yet Legal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 660	I don't see why people categorize. Somebody with a habit of categorizing sees a member of a certain group or class, I see someone who may or may not claim membership of said category who displays their habits. Ethnicity, gender, age, these are just fields to identify people, not to judge them. Categorizing different individuals is an unneccesary practice that has seemed to become common in modern culture. Thaumaturge's point about piloting is inherintly flawed. Let us say there are no pilots except for one who is knowingly intoxicated. However, there is a college student who is not a pilot who, since his father has a private airplane, would be more competent than the drunken flyer. This situation may be narrow and hypothetical, but it does provid an example of categorizing by titles may diminish the more competent candidate. __________________ RP Fighter Master RP Drama Knight Sing to me the pretty song, The one that goes day and night long, So that at the end of day, When you are gone, your song will stay.

07-26-2004, 03:38 PM	#25
Peo Wrath of the Gods Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Life IS a Video Game and I'm In It Posts: 232	I would like to again point out the fact of...."alive or not alive" now theres a categorization for ya, no getting around that one. __________________ The main cause of suffering is egoistic desire for one's own comfort and happiness. His Holiness the Dalai Lama

07-26-2004, 06:17 PM	#27
Bezo Shinobu Maehara Fanboy Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Posts: 357	This may have already been addressed (I didn't read anything but the very first post ()) but it's a fundamental human quality to divide the whole world into two very distinct groups. They are, however all based on one: Us and Them. Or sometimes, if the person has no friends: Me and Them. That's what it all boils down to, essentially. Everyone wants to be different so they have to find out what sets them apart from the other six and a half billion people out there. We all do it. Some people just do it too much. __________________ Random Cool Quote: "Only one who renounces everything possesses the strength to transcend anything." Trema, Final Fantasy X-2 Not So Random Link: Come Check Out My Deviant Art

07-26-2004, 10:28 AM	#22
Jagos FRONT KICK OF DOOM! Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Howdy pardner... Posts: 6,399	The easiest thing to do is categorize then discriminate based on that. It's harder to try to fix problems based on a different viewpoint.

07-26-2004, 08:53 PM	#28
The Mirror Emperor Enigma Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: In the depths of your mind Posts: 706	The group Us and Them? Here's my perspective: Don't think of them as Them. Think of them as Us and treat them as such. Unfortunately not too many people in the world believe that.... __________________ The Mirror Empire has a population of zero. Even I grow tired of myself.