It's about bad experiences from certain particular locations. And the option to avoid those locations.
Of course they are different things, but it's an example, based on the same principle. Would you prefer a different analogy?
I get what you are saying, but it still comes down to not knowing who you are playing and assuming they are form a certain country.
Yes. That is exactly right. Because the problem (no matter what it might be) is a pattern from that certain location. You are exactly right, you do not know who it is, but from the receiving end of the problem, does it matter?
Sticking with the shopping analogy. Does it matter who is vandalizing your car? I would say no, by avoiding that location the problem is solved, and your not shopping there affects nobody else that wishes to continue shopping there.
It still comes down to assumptions, and preconceived notions. Isnt that how racism starts?
You are getting way off track here. The OP never suggested anything of the sort. Some other people brought up race also, for no reason. Lets keep it civil.
The issue is problems with certain locations. His suggestion was based on where the IP address is (or flag presuming it's also where the IP address is). I would recommend sticking with the original subject matter and not interject things that have no relevance of any kind.
But you are right about one thing, assumptions. If you experience a problem, over and over, is it not fair for you to make assumptions about future interactions based on past problems?
I never said or implied that race as the OP's intent. I am simply bring up how dangerous it can be to make assumptions with no facts.
What facts would you like? If your experience is marred by repeated problems, is that not a fact?
Imagine telling the car owner who has repeatedly experienced vandalism that it's dangerous to make assumptions with no facts. As if the slashed tires and broken windshield are not factual enough.
You are right, it IS about assumptions. But as a chess player shouldn't that be exactly what we do? When I start a game of chess, I assume the opponent will make the best moves possible. And not just playing chess, all of life is absolutely loaded with assumptions. It's an important part of self preservation.
As chess players we should first of all be able of critical thinking. The problem with inductive reasoning are not the facts, but the unreflected interpretation of the facts. Or with Bertrand Russel: “The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken.”
It's about bad experiences from certain particular locations. And the option to avoid those locations.
Of course they are different things, but it's an example, based on the same principle. Would you prefer a different analogy?
I get what you are saying, but it still comes down to not knowing who you are playing and assuming they are form a certain country.
Yes. That is exactly right. Because the problem (no matter what it might be) is a pattern from that certain location. You are exactly right, you do not know who it is, but from the receiving end of the problem, does it matter?
Sticking with the shopping analogy. Does it matter who is vandalizing your car? I would say no, by avoiding that location the problem is solved, and your not shopping there affects nobody else that wishes to continue shopping there.
It still comes down to assumptions, and preconceived notions. Isnt that how racism starts?
You are getting way off track here. The OP never suggested anything of the sort. Some other people brought up race also, for no reason. Lets keep it civil.
The issue is problems with certain locations. His suggestion was based on where the IP address is (or flag presuming it's also where the IP address is). I would recommend sticking with the original subject matter and not interject things that have no relevance of any kind.
But you are right about one thing, assumptions. If you experience a problem, over and over, is it not fair for you to make assumptions about future interactions based on past problems?
I never said or implied that race as the OP's intent. I am simply bring up how dangerous it can be to make assumptions with no facts.
What facts would you like? If your experience is marred by repeated problems, is that not a fact?
Imagine telling the car owner who has repeatedly experienced vandalism that it's dangerous to make assumptions with no facts. As if the slashed tires and broken windshield are not factual enough.
You are right, it IS about assumptions. But as a chess player shouldn't that be exactly what we do? When I start a game of chess, I assume the opponent will make the best moves possible. And not just playing chess, all of life is absolutely loaded with assumptions. It's an important part of self preservation.