I have replied to you. You only decided to ignore it.
The very concepts your mind works on are incorrect, and I have pointed that out. If you lack such metal flexibility then you deserve to die dumb.
You were raised to believe that one drop rule is ok. You only follow that in a liberal way, not the same violent way your ancestors may or may not have used.
"I one wrote a term paper on affirmative action. Basically it said that affirmative action is fine because it stops the racism/sexism that is still very prevalent in the work force however there are a lot of stupid-ass people who are looking to game the system for jobs more qualified people deserve."
Forcing people to consider race when hiring people does not put a stop to racism."
Does affirmative action even exist in the workplace? I mean, there are equal employment clauses that may be somewhat relevant, but I have never heard of some well-defined quota that exists in employment opportunities. It's more a function of college admissions I think, which is where I feel it breaks down since any incentive the policy may have to correct for racism is misplaced.What about the diversity side of affirmative action? Many colleges claim that they champion affirmative action for diversity reasons - having a varied community contributes to campus life and encourages a better sense of community. This idea is, of course, inherently racist, but it's also something to consider - affirmative action in the modern context at its core may not be a deterrent for racism after all, but rather an appeal to diversity. This seems slightly more reasonable to me (although I still don't agree with AA overall).----@thiagoSince you seem to enjoy disregarding all my rebuttals and just continue to repeat yourself ad nauseum, I'm not going to afford you the respect of actually arguing against you until you afford me the same respect of actually listening to me and framing your responses based on mine (rather than just saying the same nonsensical stuff no matter what anybody else says). "
"Does affirmative action even exist in the workplace? I mean, there are equal employment clauses that may be somewhat relevant, but I have never heard of some well-defined quota that exists in employment opportunities. It's more a function of college admissions I think, which is where I feel it breaks down since any incentive the policy may have to correct for racism is misplaced"
-Yes, it does. If there are two people with equal resumes applying for a job, they have to hire the minority. If they hire the white person instead, the minority can file a lawsuit for discrimination, and they will win.
"What about the diversity side of affirmative action? Many colleges claim that they champion affirmative action for diversity reasons - having a varied community contributes to campus life and encourages a better sense of community. This idea is, of course, inherently racist, but it's also something to consider - affirmative action in the modern context at its core may not be a deterrent for racism after all, but rather an appeal to diversity. This seems slightly more reasonable to me (although I still don't agree with AA overall)"
-Having diversity is great, but discrimating is necessary for forced diversity. Many colleges maintain a certain ratio of minority to white population. The process involved in that is inherently racism. Diversity is only good when there is no discrimination. Having diversity does NOT make discrimination okay. Diversity can and should be achieved over time, which is inevitable. It can happen without any racism involved.
@thiagoSince you seem to enjoy disregarding all my rebuttals and just continue to repeat yourself ad nauseum, I'm not going to afford you the respect of actually arguing against you until you afford me the same respect of actually listening to me and framing your responses based on mine (rather than just saying the same nonsensical stuff no matter what anybody else says). "
He has always been that way. I let myself get drawn in by his stupidity again...
That link does not answer my 2 questions. In fact, it hurts your case which makes it obvious that you didn't read it (besides the headline)
First, it says this: "He said his group has documented 'a steady, not dramatic', growth of extremist groups- from 602 in 2000, to 926 in 2008."
That shows how extremism has been increasing BEFORE Obama was even in office. So I'm not sure if you know of the laws of cause and effect, but that means that Obama is not the cause of the rise.
"For the last time, if you guys can't get back to discussing affirmative action, this thread will be closed."
You could always just lock out Thiago - that would help. He is the one that keeps telling everyone they are racists :-)
I go for 15 hours and the arguments are now circular (and Thiago calling everyone racist if they disagree with him).
In the end, there is nothing that supports any damage to society - nothing. All the complaints are usually a fallacy, based largely on the assunption that the person who gets the job through AA, isn't qualified to get it. If they couldn't do the job, they wouldn't keep it. There is also the neglect of the benefit of integrastion through AA by the way it breaks down the barriers and forces people to confront their xenophobia.
The only people it annoys are those who believe that they are disadvantaged by it and agenda fixed people. Certain individuals do lose out sometimes by it, but if they arre that good at what they do, then surely they will rise above it at some point. It does really have much impact on Joe Bloggs from the suburbs.
It is a storm in a tea cup. Those who rail against it fail to supply real and quantifiable reasons to stop what is a long established and necessary programme.
"That link does not answer my 2 questions. In fact, it hurts your case which makes it obvious that you didn't read it (besides the headline)
First, it says this: "He said his group has documented 'a steady, not dramatic', growth of extremist groups- from 602 in 2000, to 926 in 2008."
That shows how extremism has been increasing BEFORE Obama was even in office. So I'm not sure if you know of the laws of cause and effect, but that means that Obama is not the cause of the rise."
I believe I also got this in the source AgentJ gave us. "Officials reported that Obama had received more threats than any other presidential candidate in memory, and several white supremacists were arrested for saying they would assassinate him or allegedly plotting to do so"
I wish I had a "Subby did not read the article" picture. So I'll have to stick to good old Romero.
The threats of violence towards a president from racist groups that overlap other threats of violence can be an indicator of a rise in hate group numbers and intensity. More at 11.
FYI, Thiago is notorious as one of the most hilarious (read: stupid/bad) PS3/Sony/Killzone 2 trolls on the website. He was never really arguing with you in the first place."
Blargh - I should have caught the flagrant stupidity before I let it suck me in. Oh well. Thanks for the tip =).
lilburtonboy7489 said:
Yes, it does. If there are two people with equal resumes applying for a job, they have to hire the minority. If they hire the white person instead, the minority can file a lawsuit for discrimination, and they will win.
Do you have any evidence to substantiate that? I'm honestly a bit skeptical (especially since there's not really any such thing as an "equal resume.") If a racial minority with a better resume was rejected in favor of a caucasian applicant with a less stellar resume though, then the resultant lawsuit isn't really affirmative action but rather just an appeal to the Equal Employment Clause.
lilburtonboy7489 said:
Having diversity is great, but discrimating is necessary for forced diversity. Many colleges maintain a certain ratio of minority to white population. The process involved in that is inherently racism. Diversity is only good when there is no discrimination. Having diversity does NOT make discrimination okay. Diversity can and should be achieved over time, which is inevitable. It can happen without any racism involved.
I agree that the ends don't necessarily justify the means, but do colleges really want a student body that is 35% Asian and 55% Caucasian? Is it not a bit overly optimistic to say that "oh, well this problem will eventually go away so we should just leave stuff alone now." It's a pretty accepted idea that cultural and racial diversity promotes creativity and learning. So should colleges wait for the problem to go away, or are they justified in discriminating as a quick fix to uphold an ideal college atmosphere while the government is busy dancing around and not being very quick about fixing the main issues? I don't think the answer is as clear-cut as some people may claim (although I agree that such discrimination is still innately wrong - I'm just acting as the devil's advocate here).
"That link does not answer my 2 questions. In fact, it hurts your case which makes it obvious that you didn't read it (besides the headline)
First, it says this: "He said his group has documented 'a steady, not dramatic', growth of extremist groups- from 602 in 2000, to 926 in 2008."
That shows how extremism has been increasing BEFORE Obama was even in office. So I'm not sure if you know of the laws of cause and effect, but that means that Obama is not the cause of the rise."
I believe I also got this in the source AgentJ gave us. "Officials reported that Obama had received more threats than any other presidential candidate in memory, and several white supremacists were arrested for saying they would assassinate him or allegedly plotting to do so"
I wish I had a "Subby did not read the article" picture. So I'll have to stick to good old Romero.
The threats of violence towards a president from racist groups that overlap other threats of violence can be an indicator of a rise in hate group numbers and intensity. More at 11."
This. Burton is often selective when presenting facts
sorry if someone's already made this point but I just thought of this. White people are a minority in the NBA, so does that mean they should have afirmative action to let more white people in? Of course not, you should always pick the person who is better for the job and if it turns out a certain race is genetically better at certain jobs, then so be it.
"This. Burton is often selective when presenting facts"
First time I've used Romano twice in a day. Always great to use funny pictures alongside relevant comments, and I base this off of personal experience.
"sorry if someone's already made this point but I just thought of this. White people are a minority in the NBA, so does that mean they should have afirmative action to let more white people in? Of course not, you should always pick the person who is better for the job and if it turns out a certain race is genetically better at certain jobs, then so be it."
That is true in sport, but at some point in time, historically speaking, AA was used to get them there.
AA is happening in cricket in South Africa. For so long, only whites played cricket, under apartheid. Now the cricket board forces the national selecters to have a certain number of black South Africans to be represented in the team. It caused a lot of issues and frankly, caused their team to be less than it could be. Not now. Sometimes you have to suffer a little pain now, to gain a lot of benefit later. That is the benefit of affirmative action.
Malcolm Gladwell in his book Blink talked about African Americans and testing. in it test show that when a black person was asked to list their race on the a test or application, they did worse then when they weren't asked at all. He then expounds on the fact that the modern black person feels discriminated against on a subconscious level. You could argue that AA makes minorities less qualified than otherwise. Edit: Mr. Gladwell is half black, I thought I should mention that.
anyway, I think we're just going round and round. I'll wish you all well in any continued debate. I think i'm done, I'm still new to this whole forum thing.
.anyway, I think we're just going round and round. I'll wish you all well in any continued debate. I think i'm done, I'm still new to this whole forum thing."
You are right, it is a circular discussion. I find myself repeating myself isn't furthering the debate and the same counter claims don't change anything either.
I read some of you're points oldschool; they're educated and wel thought out. However, I still have not changed my mind and I don't think any fact or opinion I would say would change your mind either. This topic is completely useless now.
"I read some of you're points oldschool; they're educated and wel thought out. However, I still have not changed my mind and I don't think any fact or opinion I would say would change your mind either. This topic is completely useless now."
And I appreciate your reply. I don't expect to change anyones mind. You shouldn't be swayed by mine or Agent J's view either. Debating is good for seeing some of those differing views.
I just have some passion on this subject. There have been a lot of disagreements that are also well thought out and totally valid. I don't judge someone in totality for a view or opinion (unless it is vile). I like the same in return.
"I read some of you're points oldschool; they're educated and wel thought out. However, I still have not changed my mind and I don't think any fact or opinion I would say would change your mind either. This topic is completely useless now."
This topic was useless a long time ago, but our stupid asses (see me/oldschool) keep getting drawn in by Thiago
Wow... I will not read through all this, but I did skim. I voted yes for the U.S. as I feel it's still needed. It goes deeper than this though... needing wounds healed and forgotten.
"Wow... I will not read through all this, but I did skim. I voted yes for the U.S. as I feel it's still needed. It goes deeper than this though... needing wounds healed and forgotten."
Hrm, its a very divided issue (at least here) and both sides of the arguement are completely valid.
Even if they were to do something like this, shouldn't they judge it on effort? Let's say there was an African American born in a rich neighborhood, was born smart, and had tons of opportunities. He still didn't work that hard and got a 3.5 GPA. Then there's a white guy born in a horrible environment, but busted his balls, tried his hardest and got a 4.0 GPA. You're saying that the rich black guy should get into college over the white guy?
Racism has no place in America anymore and the popularity of President Obama is indicative of this fact .
Austin said:
America is trying to compensate what happened back then by implementing this policy known as Affirmative Action. So what are your thoughts/opinions?"
This is not the way to compensate what happened decades ago . Remember that preferring African-Americans over whites is racism itself . It's a racist agenda to prevent a white student with higher GPA to enter a college just to let an African-American occupy the same position .
"That link does not answer my 2 questions. In fact, it hurts your case which makes it obvious that you didn't read it (besides the headline)
First, it says this: "He said his group has documented 'a steady, not dramatic', growth of extremist groups- from 602 in 2000, to 926 in 2008."
That shows how extremism has been increasing BEFORE Obama was even in office. So I'm not sure if you know of the laws of cause and effect, but that means that Obama is not the cause of the rise."
I believe I also got this in the source AgentJ gave us. "Officials reported that Obama had received more threats than any other presidential candidate in memory, and several white supremacists were arrested for saying they would assassinate him or allegedly plotting to do so"
I wish I had a "Subby did not read the article" picture. So I'll have to stick to good old Romero.
The threats of violence towards a president from racist groups that overlap other threats of violence can be an indicator of a rise in hate group numbers and intensity. More at 11."
Of course Obama is getting more death threats, because this is the first time that the opportunity has existed for white supremicists. I never doubted that Obama would get more death threats from white supremacy groups as compared to Clinton.
That does NOT mean that the groups are growing because of Obama being in office. They have been growing before that.
I agree that the ends don't necessarily justify the means, but do colleges really want a student body that is 35% Asian and 55% Caucasian? Is it not a bit overly optimistic to say that "oh, well this problem will eventually go away so we should just leave stuff alone now." It's a pretty accepted idea that cultural and racial diversity promotes creativity and learning. So should colleges wait for the problem to go away, or are they justified in discriminating as a quick fix to uphold an ideal college atmosphere while the government is busy dancing around and not being very quick about fixing the main issues? I don't think the answer is as clear-cut as some people may claim (although I agree that such discrimination is still innately wrong - I'm just acting as the devil's advocate here). "
Why do you assume that unequal amounts of races is a "problem"?
For me, it's not a problem. If a college is all black, all white, all asian, it doesn't matter. There might be good things in having diversity, I enjoy it because it's a learning experience. However, attempting to create diversity creates a problem when one did not exist before. Without diversity, a problem does not exist, even though it is better to have it. But there is no evil in diversity not existing. However, manufacturing diversity through racial obsession and discrimination (which is required to have diversity standards) creates a problem.
So yes, colleges should wait for this "problem" to go away. Especially since I don't believe it's a problem. And since the alternative is much worse, it should definitely be left alone. Over time, diversity will continue to increase because of the increase in mixed race. So by letting it go and doing nothing, the problem will be fixed without doing any immoral discrimination.
"For the last time, if you guys can't get back to discussing affirmative action, this thread will be closed."
You could always just lock out Thiago - that would help. He is the one that keeps telling everyone they are racists :-)
I go for 15 hours and the arguments are now circular (and Thiago calling everyone racist if they disagree with him).
In the end, there is nothing that supports any damage to society - nothing. All the complaints are usually a fallacy, based largely on the assunption that the person who gets the job through AA, isn't qualified to get it. If they couldn't do the job, they wouldn't keep it. There is also the neglect of the benefit of integrastion through AA by the way it breaks down the barriers and forces people to confront their xenophobia.
The only people it annoys are those who believe that they are disadvantaged by it and agenda fixed people. Certain individuals do lose out sometimes by it, but if they arre that good at what they do, then surely they will rise above it at some point. It does really have much impact on Joe Bloggs from the suburbs.
It is a storm in a tea cup. Those who rail against it fail to supply real and quantifiable reasons to stop what is a long established and necessary programme.
"
Why do you ignore every single point I made so far? You can't justifiy affirmative action besides the usual "poor minorities" argument, but forget that for this line of reason to work some concepts must be in place. And guess what? The concepts are the same from the KKK.
In your line of reason, races DO exist, and people are meant to separated into groups that celebrate "their" culture (it is not like humans behaviors and customs overlap at some point, The Other has 8 legs and live crazily different). Races not only exist in your world view, but they are arbitrarily defined by a third person, the "well-meaning white men" and it includes not only ancestry data, but the loose term "culture" and values of judgement.
You are just another pathetic racist, and any minority that actually benefit from AA is nothing but pets.
Why a man born of a white woman is called black in the US? Your president is evidence of your racism.
Log in to comment