If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?
what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.
I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.
What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?
I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?
I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.
but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.
You’re colossally missing the point.
ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.
So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?
I suppose if they feel people should use that term, they should say so. However, I would disagree with them, and I would find the strong terms to say so.
Is my reaction to the ESPN fantasy auction the same as arguing in favor of using the N-word?
[Never mind, we’re stuck in a time loop.]