One law for whites, another for blacks.
Robert Henderson
selection of players according to race during apartheid and their
attitude to the selection of players according to race under black rule.
Under apartheid, liberal bigots contorted themselves into ever more
grotesque "anti-racist" posturing because whites were favoured: under
black rule they laud the favouring of coloured, Indians and Blacks. RH
"Telegraph
South Africa v England: Makhaya Ntini conundrum has selectors on back
foot The imminent return of the world's top-ranked bowler, Dale Steyn,
from a hamstring injury is likely to fortify South Africa's attack as
they prepare for the Durban Test.
By Simon Briggs
Published: 9:39PM GMT 21 Dec 2009
Selection conundrum: The imminent return of Dale Steyn from a injury
gives South Africa's selectors a poser over whether or not they should
drop Makhaya Ntini Photo: EPA But it will also create an awkward
conundrum for the selectors. On the face of things, this would seem the
perfect moment to bid farewell to Makhaya Ntini, the black fast bowler
who just became the fourth South African to play 100 Tests.
Ntini may have taken more Test wickets over the past decade than anyone
except Muttiah Muralitharan, but he has clearly lost a yard of pace,
especially when he comes back for his second and third spells.
Meanwhile, Friedel de Wet, the 29-year-old who made his debut at
Centurion, showed himself to be a real threat: fast, accurate, and on a
par with Australia's Peter Siddle when it comes to running in fiercely
all day.
So, Steyn and De Wet should share the new ball at Durban on Saturday,
right? Well, there is a case for it. But you can bet your last rand that
it will not happen. Telegraph Sport understands that South Africa's team
management are under serious pressure to keep at least one black African
player in the side. An outsider looking at South Africa's squad for the
Centurion Test might have thought that the issue of transformation had
pretty much been resolved. As well as Ntini, the 15 included one Muslim
of Indian descent (Hashim Amla), plus four players classified as Cape
Coloured. The trouble is that, for the transformation hardliners, Cape
Coloured cricketers count as little better than whites."
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Jellore
wrote:
You are a bigoted fool, as has been shown many times over a number of
years. Ntini's continued inclusion has everything to do with misguided
loyalty to an outstanding bowler. You may recall this also happened
with Allan Donald. He played at least a half-dozen at the end in which
he should not have done. I watched one myself at the SCG. It is not
easy to drop someone with 390 wickets and 101 Tests. I suspect Sri
Lanka will have similar problems with Murali in 2010. He was very
ordinary indeed against India.
True Blue
...and you are very credulous.
Post apartheid South Africa has serious form in this respect. Their
provincial rugby teams actually had "coon quotas" that dictated
minimum black participation.
Dave (SA)
Most of the article and comments are n longer applicable in todays
times. Applicable some time ago granted.
Of course we had post-apartheid issues.
Of course we are oversensitive when it comes to racial issues.
Of course we over compensate from time to time.
And yes we have in the past allowed racial issues to interfere with
team selections.
No shit Sherlock
Whilst I won't say that racial unofficial quotas are gone forever they
are certainly gone at national level for the time being at least
* Ntini - he made and maintained his place on merit. Like all ageing
players in every cricketing nation in the world he is hanging on...
just and the end is nigh. His record speaks for himself
* Amla - After a horrible start to his Test Career he has now
blossomed. His start btw was very similar to Kallis' and Amla got
dropped then picked again. Def No 3 on merit
* Prince - a grafter and there on merit
* Duminy - Well only got into the side because of Princes injury and
boy did he take his opportunity. Helped win us the Aus Test Series in
Aus. Cricket in every nation is full of examples where a player has
received a lone chance and taken it.
* Now it is possible we have a few too many batsmen capable of filling
the top 6.Which means some bugger is going to be unlucky.
So where is the racial issue here? There isn't one. Ntini will retire
or get dropped. If not now pretty soon. Thats what happens to ageing
cricketers. National sides are often reluctant to give a star the
heavo. Look at the Aussies complaining about the way certain of their
old players hung on for too long.
But this is a cricket board
Jellore
There is no evidence to suggest that has happened with cricket,
however to be honest if there was I would sympathise given the need to
redress the horrors of apartheid.
Ntini has always been in the team on merit. Are you saying otherwise?
Robert Henderson
<c47f2801-8076-4e33...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
True Blue <garyb...@googlemail.com> writes
>>
>> You are a bigoted fool,
>
>...and you are very credulous.
Absolutely. RH
>
>Post apartheid South Africa has serious form in this respect. Their
>provincial rugby teams actually had "coon quotas" that dictated minimum
>black participation.
And the cricket team. There has to be at least one black in every Test
squad by official decree. . RH
Robert Henderson
<ec23ac9a-6aca-4d55...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jellore <jel...@bigpond.com> writes
>You are a bigoted fool,
You have yourself to the life, your bigotry being of the liberal bigot
kind. RH
>as has been shown many times over a number of years. Ntini's continued
>inclusion has everything to do with misguided loyalty to an outstanding
>bowler. You may recall this also happened with Allan Donald.
Donald was a great bowler, Ntini merely a good one. RH
>He played at least a half-dozen at the end in which he should not have
>done. I watched one myself at the SCG. It is not easy to drop someone
>with 390 wickets and 101 Tests. I suspect Sri Lanka will have similar
>problems with Murali in 2010. He was very ordinary indeed against India.
--
Robert Henderson
<e81d168d-3949-473a...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave (SA)" <david.b...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>Most of the article and comments are n longer applicable in todays
>times. Applicable some time ago granted.
>
>Of course we had post-apartheid issues.
>Of course we are oversensitive when it comes to racial issues.
>Of course we over compensate from time to time.
>And yes we have in the past allowed racial issues to interfere with
>team selections.
>No shit Sherlock
>
>Whilst I won't say that racial unofficial quotas are gone forever they
>are certainly gone at national level for the time being at least
Officially, there has to be on black in every Test squad. TMS during the
past Test. RH
>* Ntini - he made and maintained his place on merit. Like all ageing
>players in every cricketing nation in the world he is hanging on...
>just and the end is nigh. His record speaks for himself
>* Amla - After a horrible start to his Test Career
He only averages 40. Why was he persevered with after his horrific
start? RH
> he has now blossomed. His start btw was very similar to Kallis'
Kallis is an all rounder. RH
>and Amla got
>dropped then picked again. Def No 3 on merit
>* Prince - a grafter and there on merit
>* Duminy - Well only got into the side because of Princes injury and
>boy did he take his opportunity. Helped win us the Aus Test Series in
>Aus. Cricket in every nation is full of examples where a player has
>received a lone chance and taken it.
>* Now it is possible we have a few too many batsmen capable of filling
>the top 6.Which means some bugger is going to be unlucky.
Yep, the white players are the unlucky ones... RH
Uncle Spam
Dave (SA)
wrote:
> In message
> <c47f2801-8076-4e33-9d85-a85240ae2...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> True Blue <garybagg...@googlemail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >> You are a bigoted fool,
>
> >...and you are very credulous.
>
> Absolutely. RH
>
>
>
> >Post apartheid South Africa has serious form in this respect. Their
> >provincial rugby teams actually had "coon quotas" that dictated minimum
> >black participation.
>
> And the cricket team. There has to be at least one black in every Test
> squad by official decree. . RH
>
> --
> Robert Henderson
> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Which official decree is this?
Quotas got canned by CSA quite soe time ago.
Ntini is hanging on by his fingernails. Happens often with aging stars
Jellore
wrote:
> In message
> <ec23ac9a-6aca-4d55-98df-1caf231fb...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jellore <jell...@bigpond.com> writes
How do you account for his 390 Test wickets?
Dave (SA)
wrote:
> In message
> <e81d168d-3949-473a-98ca-129bd73df...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dave (SA)" <david.baker...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >Most of the article and comments are n longer applicable in todays
> >times. Applicable some time ago granted.
>
> >Of course we had post-apartheid issues.
> >Of course we are oversensitive when it comes to racial issues.
> >Of course we over compensate from time to time.
> >And yes we have in the past allowed racial issues to interfere with
> >team selections.
> >No shit Sherlock
>
> >Whilst I won't say that racial unofficial quotas are gone forever they
> >are certainly gone at national level for the time being at least
>
> Officially, there has to be on black in every Test squad. TMS during the
> past Test. RH
Says who? If Ntini gets dropped its true that some politicians will
whinge but he will have to improve, get dropped or retire
>
> >* Ntini - he made and maintained his place on merit. Like all ageing
> >players in every cricketing nation in the world he is hanging on...
> >just and the end is nigh. His record speaks for himself
> >* Amla - After a horrible start to his Test Career
>
> He only averages 40. Why was he persevered with after his horrific
> start? RH
>
He wasn't persevered with at all.
He got dropped and sent back to FC Cricket for over a year. He had a
poor series against England in 2004/2005 and got dropped.
He returned about 16 months later and made his maiden century on
return
He averages a lot more in his 2nd stint in the side.
> > he has now blossomed. His start btw was very similar to Kallis'
>
> Kallis is an all rounder. RH
Thats what maybe saved Kallis from being dropped at that time.
But Kallis is a batsman 1st and foremost. The fact he can bowl is a
bonus.
Kallis would be in the side (and most sides) for his batting alone.
>
<Snip>
> >* Now it is possible we have a few too many batsmen capable of filling
> >the top 6.Which means some bugger is going to be unlucky.
>
> Yep, the white players are the unlucky ones... RH
Yes that has happened in the past.
Not happening right now. Amla, Prince, Duminy all there on merit.
Often selectors of all countries inexplicably persist with a player.
Australians were upset with their selectors in 2007/2008.
SA persisted with Neil McKenzie when we all wanted him shot.
It happens.
Robert Henderson
<d66d1f65-c6cf-4fa6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave (SA)" <david.b...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> And the cricket team. There has to be at least one black in every Test
>> squad by official decree. . RH
>>
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>Which official decree is this?
Presumably the SA cricket board. It was mentioned, I think by Gerald De
Kock, during the last Test., RH
>Quotas got canned by CSA quite soe time ago.
>
>Ntini is hanging on by his fingernails. Happens often with aging stars
--
Robert Henderson
<45f1c731-79e4-4862...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Jellore <jel...@bigpond.com> writes
>
>How do you account for his 390 Test wickets?
A good bowler who bowled in a strong bowling side for ten years. Worth
adding he average nearly 30. RH
euno...@yahoo.com.au
How about redressing the horrors of post apartheid.
1 Murder rate up from 1000-2000 per year to 40,000. An increase by a
factor of 20.
2 The hundreds of high grade 300-400 bed hospitals buit by the
apartheid regime for blacks are crumbling. The x-ray machines don't
work and many have brocken windows.
3 Aparthied Sth Africa had the finest electricity distribution network
in Africa. It is now crumbling with frequent blackouts.
4 Shantytowns are now bigger and crumbling more.
5 Boarders aren't policed anymore, African gangs rampage through
townships and kill foreigners.
6 Murder/Mutilation of White farmers and their wifes and daughters.
7 Public and private corporations nationalised and then privatised.
Shares and directorships handed out to seniour ANC officials to 'seed
wealth' into the black community.
There was nothing horrible about apartheid. It worked at saving lives
and it produced higher relative growth under sanctions than the ANC
regime does now.
Some 50% of Whites now have to be self employed so pervasive is the
demand for 'blacks in charge'
Its possibly a few inches away from turning into Zimbabwe.
The lunatics will figure out another way to blame White people,
discriminate against them and leech them for the next 30, 40, 50,80
years.
Always an excuse.
Robert Henderson
<2456315c-828c-4625...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
euno...@yahoo.com.au writes
>
>How about redressing the horrors of post apartheid.
>
>1 Murder rate up from 1000-2000 per year to 40,000. An increase by a
>factor of 20. 2 The hundreds of high grade 300-400 bed hospitals buit
>by the apartheid regime for blacks are crumbling. The x-ray machines
>don't work and many have brocken windows. 3 Aparthied Sth Africa had
>the finest electricity distribution network in Africa. It is now
>crumbling with frequent blackouts. 4 Shantytowns are now bigger and
>crumbling more. 5 Boarders aren't policed anymore, African gangs
>rampage through townships and kill foreigners. 6 Murder/Mutilation of
>White farmers and their wifes and daughters. 7 Public and private
>corporations nationalised and then privatised. Shares and directorships
>handed out to seniour ANC officials to 'seed wealth' into the black community.
Yep, that just about sums up the "Rainbow Nation". RH
Maxx
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Note: Compare and contrast the attitude of liberal bigots to the
> selection of players according to race during apartheid and their
> attitude to the selection of players according to race under black rule.
>
> Under apartheid, liberal bigots contorted themselves into ever more
> grotesque "anti-racist" posturing because whites were favoured: under
> black rule they laud the favouring of coloured, Indians and Blacks. RH
Only one problem with your little theory Robbo. The fact that we're
even debating the selection or non-selection of whites and non-whites
in a SA sports team. Didn't have that problem during apartheid did
we?
"Slegs blankes"
Robert Henderson
<30b24a69-7235-4c95...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Maxx
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> writes
>> Note: Compare and contrast the attitude of liberal bigots to the
>> selection of players according to race during �apartheid and their
>> attitude to the selection of players according to race under black rule.
>>
>> Under apartheid, liberal bigots contorted themselves into ever more
>> grotesque "anti-racist" posturing because whites were favoured: under
>> black rule they laud the favouring of coloured, Indians and Blacks. RH
>
>Only one problem with your little theory Robbo. The fact that we're
>even debating the selection or non-selection of whites and non-whites
>in a SA sports team. Didn't have that problem during apartheid did we?
>
>"Slegs blankes"
Irrelevant to the point at issue. RH
cornholio
action. It's a system whereby blacks and latinos/hispanics are
preferentially
hired and admitted to universities at the expense of whitey.
Rodney Ulyate
wrote:
> Note: Compare and contrast the attitude of liberal bigots to the
> selection of players according to race during apartheid and their
> attitude to the selection of players according to race under black rule.
It is lost on you, no doubt, that the contrast lies not only in "the
attitude of liberal bigots [sic]"; the extent and the context, too,
are greatly changed: Under white rule, representatives of the
disenfranchised majority could *never* play, whereas under democracy,
in an attempt only to right the balance, they are merely given
preference where other criteria are too narrow to form the basis for a
decision. The liberal stance on the matter is indeed different --
quite rightly so.
> Under apartheid, liberal bigots contorted themselves into ever more
> grotesque "anti-racist" posturing because whites were favoured
Grotesque? Why?
> under black rule they laud the favouring of coloured, Indians and Blacks. RH
I see. It ought to be easy, then, for you to name each of a Coloured,
an Indian and a black player currently enjoying national favour on
grounds more of colour than of merit. (Notice that I am making your
project considerably easier than I might were I of less benevolent
humour this morning: To convince me that the situation really is
comparable to that of the apartheid years, you would have to show that
the likes of Smith, Kallis, De Wet, Steyn, Morkel and Boucher are
actually darkies in disguise, and make me forget that Ntini has just
been dropped.)
To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
at grass roots. There is no evidence, however, that this is not
almost without exception the case.
<snip>
Rodney Ulyate
Robert Henderson
<0d856c9a-aca0-490b...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> writes
>
>> Note: Compare and contrast the attitude of liberal bigots to the
>> selection of players according to race during apartheid and their
>> attitude to the selection of players according to race under black rule.
>
>It is lost on you, no doubt, that the contrast lies not only in "the
>attitude of liberal bigots [sic]"; the extent and the context, too, are
>greatly changed: Under white rule, representatives of the
>disenfranchised majority could *never* play, whereas under democracy,
>in an attempt only to right the balance, they are merely given
>preference where other criteria are too narrow to form the basis for a
>decision. The liberal stance on the matter is indeed different -- quite
>rightly so.
The argument doesn't work. Although morals may vary, one moral
principle remains immovable: whatever the morals are they must be
applied in all situations. RH
>
>> Under apartheid, liberal bigots contorted themselves into ever more
>> grotesque "anti-racist" posturing because whites were favoured
>
>Grotesque? Why?
>
Because they failed to acknowledge the complexities of the SA situation
and because in their own lives they always arrange to live in a very
white world. RH
>> under black rule they laud the favouring of coloured, Indians and Blacks. RH
>
>I see. It ought to be easy, then, for you to name each of a Coloured,
>an Indian and a black player currently enjoying national favour on
>grounds more of colour than of merit.
Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
> (Notice that I am making your project considerably easier than I might
>were I of less benevolent humour this morning: To convince me that the
>situation really is comparable to that of the apartheid years, you
>would have to show that the likes of Smith, Kallis, De Wet, Steyn,
>Morkel and Boucher are actually darkies in disguise, and make me forget
>that Ntini has just been dropped.)
Think of those whites who were never given a proper chance such as
Benkinstein and Pietersen, or those who did not play as often as they
might have done such as Nel and Jarsfeldt. RH
>
>To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
>national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
>at grass roots.
A very odd and contradictory position. You either approve or disapprove
of racial selection wherever it occurs. RH
> There is no evidence, however, that this is not almost without
>exception the case.
>
><snip>
>
>Rodney Ulyate
--
Rodney Ulyate
> The argument doesn't work. Although morals may vary, one moral
> principle remains immovable: whatever the morals are they must be
> applied in all situations. RH
You assume, for one thing, that utilitarianism is not a moral
position; for another, that both violations of the moral principle are
by definition *immoral*; and, for one more, that the standard you
outline is *not* being "applied in all situations."
You'd have to expend rather more than three lines to convince me of
any of that.
> >Grotesque? Why?
> Because they failed to acknowledge the complexities of the SA situation
What complexities, exactly? And why would the same charge be invalid
if levelled against you (as surely it must) in the present climate?
> and because in their own lives they always arrange to live in a very
> white world. RH
I don't see your point. If you're making an analogy, it falls flat on
its kisser: Whereas, in manufacturing "a very white world," the doyens
of apartheid did so through active oppression and repression of the
black population, the "liberal bigots [sic]" emphatically did not.
> Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
All are there, beyond disputation, on merit. And where is the black
player?
> Think of those whites who were never given a proper chance such as
> Benkinstein [sic]
He *was* given a proper chance.
> Pietersen
He didn't deserve a proper chance.
> or those who did not play as often as they might have done such as
> Nel and Jarsfeldt [sic].
Fine, but you haven't shown this to be a consequence of quotas, and
even if you had it would by itself be a pathetically weak
justification for the equation of apartheid with the favouritism (such
as it is) which is practised today.
> >To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
> >national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
> >at grass roots.
> A very odd and contradictory position. You either approve or disapprove
> of racial selection wherever it occurs. RH
No. I don't.
Best,
Rodney
Robert Henderson
<28b310a4-95f3-4a81...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> writes
>
>> The argument doesn't work. Although morals may vary, �one moral
>> principle remains immovable: whatever the morals are they must be
>> applied in all situations. �RH
>
>You assume, for one thing, that utilitarianism is not a moral position;
It isn't by definition because both act and rule utilitarianism
concentrate on the masses rather than the individual. Hence, it fails
as a moral principle because all are not treated as moral beings in
their own right. RH
> for another, that both violations of the moral principle
The details of moral codes are relative. RH
>are by definition *immoral*;
No such thing. See directly above. For example, many societies have and
still do honour the vendetta as a moral obligation. RH
> and, for one more, that the standard you outline is *not* being
>"applied in all situations."
I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of liberal bigots. I have
not put forward any judgement on the general principle. RH
>
>You'd have to expend rather more than three lines to convince me of any
>of that.
>
>> >Grotesque? Why?
>> Because they failed to acknowledge the complexities of the SA situation
>
>What complexities, exactly?
You need me to tell you? RH
> And why would the same charge be invalid if levelled against you (as
>surely it must) in the present climate?
>
In what sense am I inconsistent? RH
>> and because in their own lives they always arrange to live in a very
>> white world. RH
>
>I don't see your point.
It's called pointing out hypocrisy and hypocrisy scuppers any claim to
moral rectitude..rh.
>If you're making an analogy
No, that's not what I am doing. I am making a direct and unmetaphorical
comparison, a completely different thing. RH
>, it falls flat on its kisser: Whereas, in manufacturing "a very white
>world," the doyens of apartheid did so through active oppression and
>repression of the black population, the "liberal bigots [sic]"
>emphatically did not.
>
>> Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
>
>All are there, beyond disputation, on merit.
Beyond dispute? Better than Pieterson? Better than Jarsfeldt? RH
> And where is the black player?
>
>> Think of those whites who were never given a proper chance such as
>> Benkinstein [sic]
>
>He *was* given a proper chance.
Hardly played Test cricket., RH
>
>> Pietersen
>
>He didn't deserve a proper chance.
>
Why not? RH
>> or those who did not play as often as they might have done such as
>> Nel and Jarsfeldt [sic].
>
>Fine, but you haven't shown this to be a consequence of quotas, and
>even if you had it would by itself be a pathetically weak justification
>for the equation of apartheid with the favouritism (such as it is)
>which is practised today.
>
>> >To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
>> >national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
>> >at grass roots.
>> A very odd and contradictory position. You either approve or disapprove
>> of racial selection wherever it occurs. RH
>
>No. I don't.
>
No you don't what? RH
>Best,
>Rodney
Dave (SA)
> >> Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
>
> >All are there, beyond disputation, on merit.
>
> Beyond dispute? Better than Pieterson? Better than Jarsfeldt? RH
>
I know the guys have requested we don't debate with you but I need to
respond here.
Better than van Jaarsveld yes.
Pietersen is not available to us so not a valid comparison. But if we
must compare.
Better than Pietersen - Well yes if you take Pietersens form at the
time he left us.
At the time Pietersen left he was nowhere near Test level. He was 1st
Class Level and only just.
If Pietersen could return and he wanted to return he would obviously
make our side. And we would pick up. Our selectors are stupid but not
that stupid.
What was unfortunate at the time was that there was a quota system
operating at 1st Class Level (4 per side as I recall)
Pietersen was still getting regular game time and he had not shown his
potential at that point.
So the Natal selectors were guilty of not seeing his huge potential.
In hindsight it is easy to say that Pietersen got screwed.
But at the time he wasn't that much a different player to the players
keeping him out the side.
Now please don't harp on FC Quotas because we have all conceded their
existence.
What all the SA Posters are saying is that the 3 'black' players in
the National side right *now* are all there on merit. There is no
obvious candidate to replace any of them.
Jacques Rudolph is available again and is playing good FC cricket. He
will be putting pressure on any batsman that has a run of bad form.
Rudolph was definitely an example of getting screwed by quotas at the
National Level and left to do a Kolpak. He played his last Test in
2006 and left in 2007.
BTW - Rudolphs average was 36 after 35 Tests. Of course you could
argue that if we persisted with him it would be higher.
Amla's average is 40 after 39 games.
So Rudolphs current form will put pressure on positions 3 to 6 in our
batting order.
Robert Henderson
<99b3c303-728f-47c6...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave (SA)" <david.b...@gmail.com> writes
>
>I know the guys have requested we don't debate with you
Why should you take any heed of them? RH
Dave (SA)
wrote:
> In message
> <99b3c303-728f-47c6-97b1-5c5fb0a9c...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dave (SA)" <david.baker...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >I know the guys have requested we don't debate with you
>
> Why should you take any heed of them? RH
> --
> Robert Henderson
> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
I didnt did I?
Robert Henderson
<d034a999-fd81-4d85...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave (SA)" <david.b...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >I know the guys have requested we don't debate with you
>>
>> Why should you take any heed of them? RH
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>I didnt did I?
You cringingly acknowledged their attempt at censorship.... RH
Rodney Ulyate
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>:
> In message
> <28b310a4-95f3-4a81-820d-e4eb1da2f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes
> >> The argument doesn't work. Although morals may vary, one moral
> >> principle remains immovable: whatever the morals are they must be
> >> applied in all situations. RH
> >You assume, for one thing, that utilitarianism is not a moral position;
> It isn't by definition because both act and rule utilitarianism
> concentrate on the masses rather than the individual.
How does that detract ("by definition") from its morality? The mere
statement of a position doesn't make it true. I'm sure you're not
claiming that solipsism is ethical, or denying that the overriding
project of morality is to furnish a framework for our treatment of
others; so, if you'd be good enough to take the time to tell me where
exactly you're going with this, I'd be grateful.
> Hence, it fails as a moral principle because all are not treated as moral
> beings in their own right. RH
Ditto.
> > for another, that both violations of the moral principle
> The details of moral codes are relative. RH
Quite, but I don't see your point, which is probably because you don't
see mine: What I'm saying is that it is not self-evident that the
moral principle, as per your objection, isn't being "applied in all
situations." If racial equality be the target, it hardly seems wrong
(quite the contrary) to employ meliorative, handicap-based favouritism
in order that we may achieve it.
> >are by definition *immoral*;
> No such thing. See directly above. For example, many societies have and
> still do honour the vendetta as a moral obligation. RH
It would have made my life considerably easier had you been clear on
your relativism from the off. I've set myself, so as to prevent this
debate from coiling off topic, to argue within *your* moral ambit.
> > and, for one more, that the standard you outline is *not* being
> >"applied in all situations."
> I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of liberal bigots. I have
> not put forward any judgement on the general principle. RH
[...]
But you haven't shown that general principle to be inconsistently
applied. In both cases, presumably, the principle is racial equality,
an ideal that cannot be realised without amending deep-rooted
*inequality*.
> >> >Grotesque? Why?
> >> Because they failed to acknowledge the complexities of the SA situation
> >What complexities, exactly?
> You need me to tell you? RH
Yes. Fire away. Which complexities did they fail to acknowledge?
> > And why would the same charge be invalid if levelled against you (as
> >surely it must) in the present climate?
> In what sense am I inconsistent? RH
You're not acknowledging the complexities of the present situation.
> >> and because in their own lives they always arrange to live in a very
> >> white world. RH
> >I don't see your point.
> It's called pointing out hypocrisy
[...]
You may have pointed it out, but your attempts at proving it are
laughable.
> >If you're making an analogy
> No, that's not what I am doing. I am making a direct and unmetaphorical
> comparison, a completely different thing. RH
The word is rather more flexile than you presume; certainly, if the
desire of "liberal bigots [sic]" to live in a white world were not in
some way analogous to that of apartheid's perpetrators, the charge of
hypocrisy (which you make on that basis) would be invalid. (As
illustrated below, of course, it already is).
> >, it falls flat on its kisser: Whereas, in manufacturing "a very white
> >world," the doyens of apartheid did so through active oppression and
> >repression of the black population, the "liberal bigots [sic]"
> >emphatically did not.
> >> Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
> >All are there, beyond disputation, on merit.
> Beyond dispute? Better than Pieterson [sic]?
Pietersen had beetled off long before he was good enough to play
international cricket. His record on departure confirms as much.
So, yes: beyond dispute.
> Better than Jarsfeldt [sic]? RH
Amply, but I shouldn't expect you to know that when you know not even
his name. Although he wasn't granted an especially long run with the
Proteas,
(1) he did little of substance with what time he had;
(2) his place was usually usurped by no darker-hued pretenders than
Jacques Rudolph and Boeta Dippenaar; and
(3) it was he who forewent his eligibility, which makes anserine at
best the notion that one of Prince, Amla and Duminy is keeping him
out.
> > And where is the black player?
Should I take the silence to be a concession?
> >> Think of those whites who were never given a proper chance such as
> >> Benkinstein [sic]
> >He *was* given a proper chance.
> Hardly played Test cricket., RH
Your work ethic (and/or reasoning) is appalling. That he did not play
Test cricket (at all, not just "hardly") isn't grounds for supposing
that he deserved to do so, less still that he was barred by an
undeserving native.
> >> Pietersen
> >He didn't deserve a proper chance.
> Why not? RH
Because he had scarcely established himself on the domestic scene when
he left; to claim that he was anywhere near the level of the national
side is absurd.
> >> or those who did not play as often as they might have done such as
> >> Nel and Jarsfeldt [sic].
> >Fine, but you haven't shown this to be a consequence of quotas, and
> >even if you had it would by itself be a pathetically weak justification
> >for the equation of apartheid with the favouritism (such as it is)
> >which is practised today.
Again, is this a concession?
> >> >To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
> >> >national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
> >> >at grass roots.
> >> A very odd and contradictory position. You either approve or disapprove
> >> of racial selection wherever it occurs. RH
> >No. I don't.
> No you don't what? RH
I don't either approve or disapprove of racial selection wherever it
occurs. Nor do I have to.
Rodney
Robert Henderson
<cab3dcaa-3ba1-4496...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> writes
>Thusly, on Jan 6, 6:52 pm, spake Robert Henderson
><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>:
>> In message
>> <28b310a4-95f3-4a81-820d-e4eb1da2f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes
>> >> The argument doesn't work. Although morals may vary, one moral
>> >> principle remains immovable: whatever the morals are they must be
>> >> applied in all situations. RH
>> >You assume, for one thing, that utilitarianism is not a moral position;
>> It isn't by definition because both act and rule utilitarianism
>> concentrate on the masses rather than the individual.
>[...]
>
>How does that detract ("by definition") from its morality?
Because morality concerns the treatment of individuals not groups. The
Utilitarian ideology comes down to any means to achieve the end. A
strict utilitarian could argue that the sum of human happiness would be
increased if fifty per cent of the population was put to death because
that would allow the remaining fifty per cent to use the land and wealth
of the other fifty per cent - this is what happened following the Black
Death. A modern example would be the final solution, whereby a
utilitarian could maintain that killing all Jews increased the sum of
human happiness of the rest of the European continental population. RH
>The mere
>statement of a position doesn't make it true. I'm sure you're not
>claiming that solipsism is ethical, or denying that the overriding
>project of morality is to furnish a framework for our treatment of
>others;
Moral treatment has to be equal for all of the group to which the
morality is applied. Utilitarianism denies that. RH
> so, if you'd be good enough to take the time to tell me where
>exactly you're going with this, I'd be grateful.
>
>> Hence, it fails as a moral principle because all are not treated as moral
>> beings in their own right. RH
>
>Ditto.
All you are telling me is that you do not understand what constitutes a
moral action. RH
>
>> > for another, that both violations of the moral principle
>> The details of moral codes are relative. RH
>
>Quite, but I don't see your point,
The position is simple: moral codes do not have to be universal, ie,
applied to the whole of humanity , but they do have to be equally
applicable within their moral jurisdiction. RH
> which is probably because you don't
>see mine: What I'm saying is that it is not self-evident that the
>moral principle, as per your objection, isn't being "applied in all
>situations." If racial equality be the target, it hardly seems wrong
>(quite the contrary) to employ meliorative, handicap-based favouritism
>in order that we may achieve it.
>
>> >are by definition *immoral*;
>> No such thing. See directly above. For example, many societies have and
>> still do honour the vendetta as a moral obligation. RH
>
>It would have made my life considerably easier had you been clear on
>your relativism from the off.
I did. RH
> I've set myself, so as to prevent this
>debate from coiling off topic, to argue within *your* moral ambit.
>
>> > and, for one more, that the standard you outline is *not* being
>> >"applied in all situations."
>> I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of liberal bigots. I have
>> not put forward any judgement on the general principle. RH
>[...]
>
>But you haven't shown that general principle to be inconsistently
>applied.
By definition utilitarianism fails as a moral principle because it is
any means to an end, including the disregard of the individual. RH
>In both cases, presumably, the principle is racial equality,
>an ideal that cannot be realised without amending deep-rooted
>*inequality*.
>
>> >> >Grotesque? Why?
>> >> Because they failed to acknowledge the complexities of the SA situation
>> >What complexities, exactly?
>> You need me to tell you? RH
>
>Yes. Fire away. Which complexities did they fail to acknowledge?
The rascal divisions. DOH! RH
>
>> > And why would the same charge be invalid if levelled against you (as
>> >surely it must) in the present climate?
>> In what sense am I inconsistent? RH
>
>You're not acknowledging the complexities of the present situation.
It is now 18 years since the end of Apartheid. If black and coloured
players have not made their way through on their own merit by now they
never will. RH
>
>> >> and because in their own lives they always arrange to live in a very
>> >> white world. RH
>> >I don't see your point.
>> It's called pointing out hypocrisy
>[...]
>
>You may have pointed it out, but your attempts at proving it are
>laughable.
>
>> >If you're making an analogy
>> No, that's not what I am doing. I am making a direct and unmetaphorical
>> comparison, a completely different thing. RH
>
>The word is rather more flexile than you presume
No, it is merely you did not understand the meaning of the word. |RH
>; certainly, if the
>desire of "liberal bigots [sic]" to live in a white world were not in
>some way analogous to that of apartheid's perpetrators, the charge of
>hypocrisy (which you make on that basis) would be invalid. (As
>illustrated below, of course, it already is).
>
>> >, it falls flat on its kisser: Whereas, in manufacturing "a very white
>> >world," the doyens of apartheid did so through active oppression and
>> >repression of the black population, the "liberal bigots [sic]"
>> >emphatically did not.
>> >> Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
>> >All are there, beyond disputation, on merit.
>> Beyond dispute? Better than Pieterson [sic]?
>
>Pietersen had beetled off long before he was good enough to play
>international cricket. His record on departure confirms as much.
>
He was not being giuven a chance to bat up the order. RH
>So, yes: beyond dispute.
>
>> Better than Jarsfeldt [sic]? RH
>
>Amply,
Justify your claim. RH
>but I shouldn't expect you to know that when you know not even
>his name. Although he wasn't granted an especially long run with the
>Proteas,
>
>(1) he did little of substance with what time he had;
>(2) his place was usually usurped by no darker-hued pretenders than
>Jacques Rudolph and Boeta Dippenaar; and
>(3) it was he who forewent his eligibility, which makes anserine at
>best the notion that one of Prince, Amla and Duminy is keeping him
>out.
>
>> > And where is the black player?
>
>Should I take the silence to be a concession?
Silence about what? RH
>
>> >> Think of those whites who were never given a proper chance such as
>> >> Benkinstein [sic]
>> >He *was* given a proper chance.
>> Hardly played Test cricket., RH
>
>Your work ethic (and/or reasoning) is appalling. That he did not play
>Test cricket (at all, not just "hardly") isn't grounds for supposing
>that he deserved to do so, less still that he was barred by an
>undeserving native.
This is a man with a career average of over 40. RH
>
>> >> Pietersen
>> >He didn't deserve a proper chance.
>> Why not? RH
>
>Because he had scarcely established himself on the domestic scene when
>he left; to claim that he was anywhere near the level of the national
>side is absurd.
He was being pushed down the order for some odd reason. RH
>
>> >> or those who did not play as often as they might have done such as
>> >> Nel and Jarsfeldt [sic].
>> >Fine, but you haven't shown this to be a consequence of quotas, and
>> >even if you had it would by itself be a pathetically weak justification
>> >for the equation of apartheid with the favouritism (such as it is)
>> >which is practised today.
>
>Again, is this a concession?
Of what? RH
>
>> >> >To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
>> >> >national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
>> >> >at grass roots.
>> >> A very odd and contradictory position. You either approve or disapprove
>> >> of racial selection wherever it occurs. RH
>> >No. I don't.
>> No you don't what? RH
>
>I don't either approve or disapprove of racial selection wherever it
>occurs. Nor do I have to.
>
What a cop-out. People like you are the ground the politically correct
stand on. RH
#
Rodney Ulyate
squirmed:
> In message
> <cab3dcaa-3ba1-4496-a7c9-d78f58ed4...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes
> >Thusly, on Jan 6, 6:52 pm, spake Robert Henderson
> ><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>:
> >> In message
> >> <28b310a4-95f3-4a81-820d-e4eb1da2f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >> The argument doesn't work. Although morals may vary, one moral
> >> >> principle remains immovable: whatever the morals are they must be
> >> >> applied in all situations. RH
> >> >You assume, for one thing, that utilitarianism is not a moral position;
> >> It isn't by definition because both act and rule utilitarianism
> >> concentrate on the masses rather than the individual.
> >[...]
> >How does that detract ("by definition") from its morality?
> Because morality concerns the treatment of individuals not groups.
Piffle. It concerns both (by definition), and one by virtue of the
other. Often, difficult though it may be, it is necessary to separate
the two and thereby forego the interests of the individual for the
benefit of the group -- a necessity which only utilitarianism
adequately recognises.
> The Utilitarian ideology comes down to any means to achieve the end.
No. It comes down to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
> A strict utilitarian could argue that the sum of human happiness would be
> increased if fifty per cent of the population was put to death because
> that would allow the remaining fifty per cent to use the land and wealth
> of the other fifty per cent - this is what happened following the Black
> Death. A modern example would be the final solution, whereby a
> utilitarian could maintain that killing all Jews increased the sum of
> human happiness of the rest of the European continental population. RH
Again: piffle.
> >The mere statement of a position doesn't make it true. I'm sure
> >you're not claiming that solipsism is ethical, or denying that the
> >overriding project of morality is to furnish a framework for our treatment
> >of others;
> Moral treatment has to be equal for all of the group to which the
> morality is applied.
[...]
Why? Any number of cases spring to mind in which such a treatment
would be to the detriment of "all of the group."
> >> Hence, it fails as a moral principle because all are not treated as moral
> >> beings in their own right. RH
> >Ditto.
> All you are telling me is that you do not understand what constitutes a
> moral action. RH
I am not telling you anything, but I am asking of you rather a lot,
and what you are telling me is that you are unequal to the task.
> > which is probably because you don't
> >see mine: What I'm saying is that it is not self-evident that the
> >moral principle, as per your objection, isn't being "applied in all
> >situations." If racial equality be the target, it hardly seems wrong
> >(quite the contrary) to employ meliorative, handicap-based favouritism
> >in order that we may achieve it.
Coward. I want a response to the above.
> >> >are by definition *immoral*;
> >> No such thing. See directly above. For example, many societies have and
> >> still do honour the vendetta as a moral obligation. RH
> >It would have made my life considerably easier had you been clear on
> >your relativism from the off.
> I did. RH
[...]
Where?
> >> > and, for one more, that the standard you outline is *not* being
> >> >"applied in all situations."
> >> I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of liberal bigots. I have
> >> not put forward any judgement on the general principle. RH
> >[...]
> >But you haven't shown that general principle to be inconsistently
> >applied.
> By definition utilitarianism fails as a moral principle because it is
> any means to an end, including the disregard of the individual. RH
I wasn't talking about utilitarianism, dear; do try to keep up. At
this point in our discussion we have turned to the matter of racial
quotas. I repeat: "If racial equality be the target, it hardly seems
wrong (quite the contrary) to employ meliorative, handicap-based
favouritism in order that we may achieve it."
> >In both cases, presumably, the principle is racial equality,
> >an ideal that cannot be realised without amending deep-rooted
> >*inequality*.
Twice now you have avoided the question. Do grow a pair before
unleashing your next myopic fulmination.
> >> >> >Grotesque? Why?
> >> >> Because they failed to acknowledge the complexities of the SA situation
> >> >What complexities, exactly?
> >> You need me to tell you? RH
> >Yes. Fire away. Which complexities did they fail to acknowledge?
> The rascal divisions.
What on earth are "rascal divisions"?
> DOH!
What on earth is "DOH"?
> RH
What on earth compels you to remind yourself of your name at the end
of every bigoted effusion?
> >> > And why would the same charge be invalid if levelled against you (as
> >> >surely it must) in the present climate?
> >> In what sense am I inconsistent? RH
> >You're not acknowledging the complexities of the present situation.
> It is now 18 years since the end of Apartheid. If black and coloured
> players have not made their way through on their own merit by now they
> never will. RH
[...]
If eighteen years is enough to bridge the gaping chasm engendered of
centuries' oppression, those centuries should have been more than
enough for your partners in buck-brained racism to pedal themselves
into the Twentieth Century.
> >> >If you're making an analogy
> >> No, that's not what I am doing. I am making a direct and unmetaphorical
> >> comparison, a completely different thing. RH
> >The word is rather more flexile than you presume
> No, it is merely you did not understand the meaning of the word. |RH
As I have shown in the text quoted directly below (which, once more,
you have less-than-skilfully evaded), I understand fully the meaning
of the word.
> >; certainly, if the desire of "liberal bigots [sic]" to live in a white world
> >were not in some way analogous to that of apartheid's perpetrators,
> the charge of hypocrisy (which you make on that basis) would be invalid.
> (As illustrated below, of course, it already is).
Coward.
> >> >, it falls flat on its kisser: Whereas, in manufacturing "a very white
> >> >world," the doyens of apartheid did so through active oppression and
> >> >repression of the black population, the "liberal bigots [sic]"
> >> >emphatically did not.
> >> >> Prince, Amla, Duminy. RH
> >> >All are there, beyond disputation, on merit.
> >> Beyond dispute? Better than Pieterson [sic]?
> >Pietersen had beetled off long before he was good enough to play
> >international cricket. His record on departure confirms as much.
> He was not being giuven a chance to bat up the order. RH
[...]
Probably because he was acknowledged at the time to have greater
facility with the ball. I tire of reminding you that in order for
your crooked thesis to stand up to even the most perfunctory scrutiny
you have to show that your white martyrs were martyred at the hands of
the racial quota -- a task at which you have not once so far
succeeded, and the impossibility of which you tacitly acknowledge in
your repeated failure even to attempt it.
I have very good reason to suppose that you know fuck-all about the
state of Natalian cricket at the turn of the century, but my next
question provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for you to emerge
from toddlerhood and admit your nescience, so I shall do you the
favour of asking it anyway: Who were the non-whites who took
Pietersen's place?
> >> Better than Jarsfeldt [sic]? RH
> >Amply,
> Justify your claim. RH
I have. Look down.
> >but I shouldn't expect you to know that when you know not even
> >his name. Although he wasn't granted an especially long run with the
> >Proteas,
> >(1) he did little of substance with what time he had;
> >(2) his place was usually usurped by no darker-hued pretenders than
> >Jacques Rudolph and Boeta Dippenaar; and
> >(3) it was he who forewent his eligibility, which makes anserine at
> >best the notion that one of Prince, Amla and Duminy is keeping him
> >out.
Coward.
> >> > And where is the black player?
> >Should I take the silence to be a concession?
> Silence about what? RH
What do you think? The question is "where is the black player?"; the
silence, resonant and revealing, is yours.
Coward.
> >> >> Think of those whites who were never given a proper chance such as
> >> >> Benkinstein [sic]
> >> >He *was* given a proper chance.
> >> Hardly played Test cricket., RH
> >Your work ethic (and/or reasoning) is appalling. That he did not play
> >Test cricket (at all, not just "hardly") isn't grounds for supposing
> >that he deserved to do so, less still that he was barred by an
> >undeserving native.
> This is a man with a career average of over 40. RH
So what? Have you not read a syllable of the above? To argue that a
player was good enough is a very different thing from arguing that he
was barred by a black. What you have set yourself to do is the
latter, so kindly get off your hindquarters, refill your empty scrotum
and bloody well do it.
> >> >> Pietersen
> >> >He didn't deserve a proper chance.
> >> Why not? RH
> >Because he had scarcely established himself on the domestic scene when
> >he left; to claim that he was anywhere near the level of the national
> >side is absurd.
> He was being pushed down the order for some odd reason. RH
It is your job, not mine, to say what that reason is.
> >> >> or those who did not play as often as they might have done such as
> >> >> Nel and Jarsfeldt [sic].
> >> >Fine, but you haven't shown this to be a consequence of quotas, and
> >> >even if you had it would by itself be a pathetically weak justification
> >> >for the equation of apartheid with the favouritism (such as it is)
> >> >which is practised today.
> >Again, is this a concession?
> Of what? RH
Coward.
> >> >> >To make my position clear: I loathe the concept of "transformation" at
> >> >> >national level. If race-based privilege must be accorded, it should be
> >> >> >at grass roots.
> >> >> A very odd and contradictory position. You either approve or disapprove
> >> >> of racial selection wherever it occurs. RH
> >> >No. I don't.
> >> No you don't what? RH
> >I don't either approve or disapprove of racial selection wherever it
> >occurs. Nor do I have to.
> What a cop-out.
What an irony!
It is not in the least a cop-out. In stark contrast to your work-shy
and racist and stupid and narcissistic and cynical and delusional
self, I have reasoned my position throughout this exchange.
> People like you are the ground the politically correct stand on. RH
I really ought to have added "cowardly" to the above.
Rodney Ulyate