NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

-The Nomadic Peoples Of KnightWish

you do have a point. getting called homophobic and a biased asshole when all you're asking is that society's basic building block is not changed does get kind of old. (Now if you're killing gays, that's another matter altogether, but ths is perfectly fine- not all traditions are bad, they tend to have formed for a reason.)

Political correctness got out of hand a long time ago (and this is coming from a minority member.)

Quotas have been illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) for some time now, don't you know.

Oh Lord. This sort of thing makes it hard for rational and informed opponents of affirmative action to get their point accross.

I think the title of this thread gives away quite a lot about the motivations of this kind of complaint.

I'd like to see an example of a company that has quotas, since they would be breaking the law.

Also, no. There can never be too much equality.

Quotas have been illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) for some time now, don't you know.

Affirmative Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action) is not.

Not that I'm saying it's good or bad. Just pointing its existence out.

Ok it seems that I didnt get my point across. If Everybody is supposed to be Equal, how come Minority groups get rights I dont?

Ok it seems that I didnt get my point across. If Everybody is supposed to be Equal, how come Minority groups get rights I dont?

It's the mexicans who dominate politics working in tandem with the black women who dominate big business to opress white men who have little power. That's why.

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages
They don't have any special privileges. Maybe it appears so since they're now getting the same privileges as rich white males, but they really don't.
Ok it seems that I didnt get my point across. If Everybody is supposed to be Equal, how come Minority groups get rights I dont?
Please, name these rights.

It's the mexicans who dominate politics working in tandem with the black women who dominate big business to opress white men who have little power. That's why.

You're just a part of the man-o-centric male-ocracy.

you do have a point. getting called homophobic and a biased asshole when all you're asking is that society's basic building block is not changed does get kind of old. (Now if you're killing gays, that's another matter altogether, but ths is perfectly fine- not all traditions are bad, they tend to have formed for a reason.)

Political correctness got out of hand a long time ago (and this is coming from a minority member.)

I think the analogy would be better if it were "straight people can't get married if they don't think gay people should be able to". No one is denying straight people the ability to marry. They are just offering the ability to other people.

I wouldn't call it homophobic as much as I would call it childish for people to say, "you can't have this thing. It's our thing. If you have it, it would ruin it for us."

Ok it seems that I didnt get my point across. If Everybody is supposed to be Equal, how come Minority groups get rights I dont?

Because in order for them to achieve the level of success that you have, they must be given special advantages.

Because in order for them to achieve the level of success that you have, they must be given special advantages.

Then that's not equality. If it was equality, everyone would have the exact same rights, privalages, and advantages.

Then that's not equality. If it was equality, everyone would have the exact same rights, privalages, and advantages.

But many minority groups are disadvantaged. How do you intend to make them less disadvantaged?

Stupid posts make my brain hurt.

Then that's not equality. If it was equality, everyone would have the exact same rights, privalages, and advantages.

Exactly. For a long time in America white men had advantages over everyone. Think of it as a race. White people got an unfair head start. To restore equality either the white people must be slowed down or the others must be sped up. Which sounds more fair to you?

But many minority groups are disadvantaged. How do you intend to make them less disadvantaged?

Can I ask how they are disadvantaged, first?

Exactly. For a long time in America white men had advantages over everyone. Think of it as a race. White people got an unfair head start. To restore equality either the white people must be slowed down or the others must be sped up. Which sounds more fair to you?

That was in the past. It's different now. If not, How come I got denied access to 2 diferent Universities becuase they had "too many" white students?

Exactly. For a long time in America white men had advantages over everyone. Think of it as a race. White people got an unfair head start. To restore equality either the white people must be slowed down or the others must be sped up. Which sounds more fair to you?

Earlier I said "I think the title of this thread gives away quite a lot about the motivations of this kind of complaint". If you're a white male you have lots of advantages and therefore you have a decent reason, from the self-interested perspective, to oppose this kind of equality. The complaint therefore isn't that black people or gay people or whoever are getting a better deal but instead that there's "too much equality".

Can I ask how they are disadvantaged, first?

Check out black unemployment rates, levels of education, levels of income.

Too mcuh equality by means of government assistance only harms the reciever. By giving out money to dysfuncional communities all you ensure is that they abuse it on drugs. By pushing people through education who are not properly qualified you only bring down everyone elses standing.

The best way to reach equailty I believe is to back off and let people succed or fail on their own. All of this guestering only leads the minority to grow a sense of "entitlement" to things that are not allowed for the rest of the population. AND that the rest of the population must pay for.

Have you ever heard of a news story or statement from a minority leader saying "We are fine now" "We have been acepted fairly into society"? All this equality does is seperate the minority group that moves of the racist assumption that because a person is from that group they are unable to care from themselves and need the nanny state to throw heaps of money their way.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. You just say it SOOO much better.:)

Too mcuh equality by means of government assistance only harms the reciever. By giving out money to dysfuncional communities all you ensure is that they abuse it on drugs. By pushing people through education who are not properly qualified you only bring down everyone elses standing.

The best way to reach equailty I believe is to back off and let people succed or fail on their own. All of this guestering only leads the minority to grow a sense of "entitlement" to things that are not allowed for the rest of the population. AND that the rest of the population must pay for.

Have you ever heard of a news story or statement from a minority leader saying "We are fine now" "We have been acepted fairly into society"? All this equality does is seperate the minority group that moves of the racist assumption that because a person is from that group they are unable to care from themselves and need the nanny state to throw heaps of money their way.

Also, no. There can never be too much equality.

LOL....Now I finally understand why I've never liked you.

"Never make equal what is unequal."

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

"I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality."



THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.


Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.


It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.


George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.


On the television screen were ballerinas.


A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.


“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.


“Huh?” said George.


“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.


“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.


George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.


Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.


“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.


“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”


“Um,” said George.


“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday – just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”


“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.


“Well – maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”


“Good as anybody else,” said George.


“Who knows better’n I do what normal is?” said Hazel.


“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.


“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”


It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.


“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”


George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.


“You been so tired lately – kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”


“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”


“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean – you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”


“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”


“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.


“There you are,” said George. “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”


If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.


“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.


“What would?” said George blankly.


“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?”


“Who knows?” said George.


The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – ”


He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.


“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”


“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.


And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.


“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”


A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen – upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.


The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever worn heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H–G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.


Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.


And to offset his good looks, the H–G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle–tooth random.


“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”


There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.


Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.


George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God –” said George, “that must be Harrison!”


The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.


When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.


Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.


“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.


“Even as I stand here –” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”


Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.


Harrison’s scrap–iron handicaps crashed to the floor.


Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.


He flung away his rubber–ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.


“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”


A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.


Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all, he removed her mask.


She was blindingly beautiful.


“Now” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.


The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”


The music began. It was normal at first – cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.


The music began again and was much improved.


Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while – listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.


They shifted their weights to their toes.


Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.


And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!


Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.


They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.


They leaped like deer on the moon.


The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling.


They kissed it.


And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.


It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.


Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.


It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.


Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George.


But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.


George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.


“Yup,” she said,


“What about?” he said.


“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”


“What was it?” he said.


“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.


“Forget sad things,” said George.


“I always do,” said Hazel.


“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.


“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.


“You can say that again,” said George.


“Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

Earlier I said "I think the title of this thread gives away quite a lot about the motivations of this kind of complaint". If you're a white male you have lots of advantages and therefore you have a decent reason, from the self-interested perspective, to oppose this kind of equality. The complaint therefore isn't that black people or gay people or whoever are getting a better deal but instead that there's "too much equality".



Check out black unemployment rates, levels of education, levels of income.

They have the same chance to succeed as everyone else, why must they be given special advantages? Are you saying that they are stupid and need help?

That was in the past. It's different now.
Not really, no.
If not, How come I got denied access to 2 diferent Universities becuase they had "too many" white students?

Quotas are illegal. If you can prove that this is the case you can probably take those universities to court.

You really feel it necessary to paste the entire text of "Harrison Bergeron"? Like we can't follow the link? That's sort of anvilicious of you.

As regards the OP, I'd be downright flabbergasted if the admissions officers told you outright that you were rejected because they had the space reserved for some minority person with half your GPA. So, what, you had spies in the admissions offices?

Witness the blistering buffoons praise their god, Equality, like true fetishists. Ever pathetic, ever fools.

You really feel it necessary to paste the entire text of "Harrison Bergeron"? Like we can't follow the link? That's sort of anvilicious of you.

As regards the OP, I'd be downright flabbergasted if the admissions officers told you outright that you were rejected because they had the space reserved for some minority person with half your GPA. So, what, you had spies in the admissions offices?

No. One of them is a good friend of mine.And the space wasn't really 'reserved'. The headmaster was told, who then told the AO's, that they "need to diversify thier student body."

They have the same chance to succeed as everyone else, why must they be given special advantages? Are you saying that they are stupid and need help?

Black children are more likely to receive a lower standard of education and grow up in a single parent household. Both these factors have been shown to impede one's chance of success. So they don't have the same chance of success.

I think the title of this thread gives away quite a lot about the motivations of this kind of complaint.

Seriously. No spoilers in thread titles, please. ;)

Seriously. No spoilers in thread titles, please. ;)

No spoiler meant. Sorry. :D

From an Australian perspective, we do see this:
Some Australian Aborigines expect the same rights as us, but without the responsibilities. They expect the welfare cheques, they expect the government assistance but they do not want to be useful members of the community.

Yes, there is a degree of the impacts of previous inequalities affecting the situation, but no child born in Australia has a reason to be not vaccinated. No family has an excuse for not feeding their children healthy food. No community can use the excuse of lack of resources.

For change to take place, there has to be 2 factors: resources to make the change, and the people to be willing to change.

Emphasis on the word 'some' from the first sentence. There are some people of aborigine heritage that have made an effort, and are fully functioning members of society.

LOL....Now I finally understand why I've never liked you.

"Never make equal what is unequal."

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

"I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality."

First of all, you've always wubbed me! :fluffle:

Secondly, if you ever have felt a momentary dislike, it's because I have a nasty tendency to dismantle your claims and unravel your points, while pointing out the many flaws in your arguments. But hey, I'm not the only one to do that, so your wub for me must surely not be eclipsed by such a fleeting emotion.

Thirdly, I never said that you should force equality between things and issues that cannot be equal - that would be silly. (Though I know you have nastier meanings underneath your interpretation.)

Fourthly, regarding your quote: tl;dr

They have the same chance to succeed as everyone else, why must they be given special advantages? Are you saying that they are stupid and need help?

They certainly do not. They typically grow up in poorer families, go to worse schools and suffer from the effects of racism.

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

-The Nomadic Peoples Of KnightWish

I don't think anyone's going to call you rascist but they might call you racist.

How do you know that you were refused for that reason? Perhaps your grades just weren't good enough. Based on your spelling, I think that's a possibility.

No one should call you whatever they like. If they attack your race, it's still racist. It doesn't matter what race you are.

While I don't neccessarily agree with all affirmative action, I think it's important that everyone - despite financial status, race, gender etc - deserves an education.

If you want to get into university, just study harder.

Ok it seems that I didnt get my point across. If Everybody is supposed to be Equal, how come Minority groups get rights I dont?

How do they?

Can I ask how they are disadvantaged, first?

:rolleyes:

That was in the past. It's different now. If not, How come I got denied access to 2 diferent Universities becuase they had "too many" white students?

It's not exactly ancient news. The final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was only in December 1865.

While I agree that it's unfair that someone with a high GPA could be disregarded for someone with a lower GPA based on their race, I haven't seen you prove that that's actually the reason why you weren't accepted.

Black children are more likely to receive a lower standard of education and grow up in a single parent household. Both these factors have been shown to impede one's chance of success. So they don't have the same chance of success.

Isn't that a school system issue (ie. fix it that end of the equation) and also an issue that the government has no responsibility to correct, unless we're going to start outlawing premarital sex and divorces...

It would be a lot better just to stop screwing around with our school systems than to continue affirmative action.


BTW those are not the only two reasons of course.

LOL....Now I finally understand why I've never liked you.

"Never make equal what is unequal."

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

"I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality."
Because as everyone knows, what minority groups want is for everyone else to be dragged down to their level of disadvantage. Gays want everyone to have to hide their sexuality out of fear, for example.

Isn't that a school system issue (ie. fix it that end of the equation) and also an issue that the government has no responsibility to correct, unless we're going to start outlawing premarital sex and divorces...

It would be a lot better just to stop screwing around with our school systems than to continue affirmative action.


BTW those are not the only two reasons of course.

I didn't say that I supported affirmative action, I was just pointing out that not everyone gets an equal start and to assume that everyone will rise and fall solely on their own merits from unequal starts is false.

Because as everyone knows, what minority groups want is for everyone else to be dragged down to their level of disadvantage. Gays want everyone to have to hide their sexuality out of fear, for example.

What he's saying is that some members of a number of minority groups fail to bring themselves up. For example, the drug problems in the African-American community (which also transcends all races and ethinicities but is most noticeable and violent there).

Because as everyone knows, what minority groups want is for everyone else to be dragged down to their level of disadvantage. Gays want everyone to have to hide their sexuality out of fear, for example.

I tried to hide my sexuality out of fear, but as I'm married and pregnant I'm scared that people will start to figure it out.

Exactly. For a long time in America white men had advantages over everyone. Think of it as a race. White people got an unfair head start. To restore equality either the white people must be slowed down or the others must be sped up. Which sounds more fair to you?

There is a third option. Why not start a new "race"?

Outside our metaphor, this would be radical redistribution of wealth, and government controls to keep a balance between "Red Scare" style equality, illustrated in Harrison Burgeron, and total income inequality, as we have right now.

This speeding up/slowing down business is too inaccurate and causes ire expressed in the initial post of the topic. I think my option far better, and also happens to solve most of Humanity's problems along the way if it's done for the whole of the world.

Just MHO. :-)

What he's saying is that some members of a number of minority groups fail to bring themselves up. For example, the drug problems in the African-American community (which also transcends all races and ethinicities but is most noticeable and violent there).

And why have they failed? And why should we just stand here and let them fail?

Oh, and he's not really saying anything. His needlessly long post suggests that he may have a point, but he has yet to actually make it.

There is a third option. Why not start a new "race"?

Outside our metaphor, this would be radical redistribution of wealth, and government controls to keep a balance between "Red Scare" style equality, illustrated in Harrison Burgeron, and total income inequality, as we have right now.

This speeding up/slowing down business is too inaccurate and causes ire expressed in the initial post of the topic. I think my option far better, and also happens to solve most of Humanity's problems along the way if it's done for the whole of the world.

Just MHO. :-)

Well, I suppose pressing the reset button is an option, but not one that many people will like, especially the rich.

From an Australian perspective, we do see this:
Some Australian Aborigines expect the same rights as us, but without the responsibilities. They expect the welfare cheques, they expect the government assistance but they do not want to be useful members of the community.

It's kind of hard to be a useful member of the community when you're homeless and an alcoholic. The indigenous people who are suffering from alcoholism and poverty - just like anyone else suffering from those - aren't exactly about to jump into a suit tomorrow and become CEO of Suncorp, now are they? Firstly, they need more than Centrelink - education, housing, medical and mental help. Then, perhaps, once all impoverished individuals have the same living standards as the rest of the Australian population, we can start talking about how "screwed up" the notion of Abstudy and extra financial assistance from Centrelink is.

Yes, there is a degree of the impacts of previous inequalities affecting the situation, but no child born in Australia has a reason to be not vaccinated. No family has an excuse for not feeding their children healthy food. No community can use the excuse of lack of resources.

No, there is no reason not to vaccinate your child when you live in the city, have transport, and there are bulk billing clinics around. However, what about Aboriginals up in Arakoon and over impoverished, isolated areas? When those people don't have the resourses at hand, the government is at least partially to blame. And yes, morally, all families should feed their child healthily, but again, anyone impoverished would struggle to do so. And the community? Well, I personally feel that the government needs to take action in Aboriginal communities, not by placing Anglo politicians in charge but by building schools, community centres and housing.


For change to take place, there has to be 2 factors: resources to make the change, and the people to be willing to change.

That's very true.

There is a third option. Why not start a new "race"?

Outside our metaphor, this would be radical redistribution of wealth, and government controls to keep a balance between "Red Scare" style equality, illustrated in Harrison Burgeron, and total income inequality, as we have right now.

This speeding up/slowing down business is too inaccurate and causes ire expressed in the initial post of the topic. I think my option far better, and also happens to solve most of Humanity's problems along the way if it's done for the whole of the world.

Just MHO. :-)

Or we could accept that the race effectively restarts every generation since most people have to go through their lives (find an education, jobs, etc.) without any sort of special advantage unless your parent is an alumni of a college or a long-time partner/owner of a company (or extremely wealthy, but then you aren't as involved in the quest for a job).

And why have they failed? And why should we just stand here and let them fail?

Oh, and he's not really saying anything. His needlessly long post suggests that he may have a point, but he has yet to actually make it.

Don't expect him to make one either. He usually doesn't have "the energy" to do so.

Don't expect him to make one either. He usually doesn't have "the energy" to do so.

If only making a point was as easy as copy/pasting Harrison Burgeron.

And come on, who hasn't read it before anyway?

Well, I suppose pressing the reset button is an option, but not one that many people will like, especially the rich.
Especially not partisan hacks who feed off subsidies like pigs at the trough...

Or we could accept that the race effectively restarts every generation since most people have to go through their lives (find an education, jobs, etc.) without any sort of special advantage unless your parent is an alumni of a college or a long-time partner/owner of a company (or extremely wealthy, but then you aren't as involved in the quest for a job).

That doesn't resemble reality whatsoever. It resembles a libertarians ideal world perhaps but certainly not this real one that we have to put up with. Middle class parents are much more likely to raise children who become middle class adults than working class parents. Under your scenario, this can only be explained by jaw dropping amount of coincidence.

That doesn't resemble reality whatsoever. It resembles a libertarians ideal world perhaps but certainly not this real one that we have to put up with. Middle class parents are more likely to raise children who are middle class adults than working class parents. Under your scenario, this can only be explained by jaw dropping amount of coincidence.

What you seem to be suggesting is that there is no class shifting in democratic, capitalist societies (and there is). It's just more likely for you to stay at the same level of class or move up than to move down. So minority groups should be moving up in the (artificial) class system (which they are). I would suggest that even without affirmative action, within 100-200 years, we will see a much more diverse Wall Street and Capitol Hill.

If only making a point was as easy as copy/pasting Harrison Burgeron.

And come on, who hasn't read it before anyway?

Actually, I haven't.

Ossama Obama;13767292']Especially not partisan hacks who feed off subsidies like pigs at the trough...

http://onthefarm.e2bn.org/library/1169628412/100_6563.jpg

homeless Government provide them with free housing or rent assistance. I have heard many stories about them just trashing the houses.
The indigenous people who are suffering from alcoholism and poverty - just like anyone else suffering from those - aren't exactly about to jump into a suit tomorrow and become CEO of Suncorp, now are they?
Of course not. Anybody though, can save $100, go buy a pair of pants & shoes and get a job at Woolies. It is not a great job, but it is a start - work your way up. There are plenty of government funded training programs specifically created for indigenous Australians.

Firstly, they need more than Centrelink - education, housing, medical and mental help.
State Education system exists
Government housing exists
medicare and public hospitals exist
mental health falls into medical, I am not sure of the actual policy of it, but I believe that if a person seeks help, they can find it.

Then, perhaps, once all impoverished individuals have the same living standards as the rest of the Australian population, Like I said before, for change to happen, they need to want it. When the government tries to help, they just bite the hand that feeds them.



No, there is no reason not to vaccinate your child when you live in the city, have transport, and there are bulk billing clinics around. However, what about Aboriginals up in Arakoon and over impoverished, isolated areas?
Queensland health has doctors and other primary care providers on a rotational basis up there, ie, Mondays in community A, Tuesdays in community B. Because it is through QH, it is all bulk billed I believe.
And yes, morally, all families should feed their child healthily, but again, anyone impoverished would struggle to do so.
Then tell them to stop spending their welfare cheques on alcohol! you go through any North queensland community, and there are often Aborigines pissed as anything in the street with a box of goon by their side.
Well, I personally feel that the government needs to take action in Aboriginal communities, not by placing Anglo politicians in charge but by building schools, community centres and housing.
They do. I sort of agree with you. An Aborigine community needs an aborigine in charge. Something along the lines of you need the person in charge to have the same experiences as the people they serve.

]

What you seem to be suggesting is that there is no class shifting in democratic, capitalist societies (and there is).

"More likely" and "totally guaranteed" are easy to distinguish. Don't willfully misrepresent me.

I would suggest that even without affirmative action, within 100-200 years, we will see a much more diverse Wall Street and Capitol Hill.

I agree.

http://www.guhsd.net/mcdowell/history/projects/wmburden/whiteman.html

Its sad, its true, but we asked for it.

That was in the past. It's different now. If not, How come I got denied access to 2 diferent Universities becuase they had "too many" white students?

what colleges did you not get into, when, and just who told you that it was because they gave YOUR spot to a minority?

Why would a college or a business be encouraged to hire more black people?

Well consider this: 12.9% of the population of the United States is black. Why would colleges and businesses need to try so hard to make their demographics match that figure?
Is it because schools in urban centers with high populations of black children are overcrowded and less likely to attract the best teachers on meager budgets? Is it because children are the products of their parents and their parents are disillusioned undereducated and angry due to an even more lopsided system a generation ago?

Does it matter? How do you fix it? How do you ensure that children are given equal opportunities, that all students get into college on merit alone and that by a happy coincidence, 12.9% of college students are black? How do we ensure that by a happy coincidence, 12.9% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies will be black in the future?

Simple: The cycle has to end. It's a lot easier to encourage 12.9% in colleges and universities than it is to go back in time and repair the damage done to their parents and to their neighborhoods. Perhaps in a generation or two, black children will no longer be the products of disillusioned angry overworked underpaid undereducated parents molded in overcrowded schools by teachers afraid to show up for work. Perhaps in a generation or two, 12.9% will be the norm. But how many generations will it take otherwise?

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:


Since when is the term 'black' racist? What special privileges are speaking of? Finally, don't blame affirmative action on the fact you weren't good enough to get in. What's next, are you going to blame Mexicans for taking your job?

what colleges did you not get into, when, and just who told you that it was because they gave YOUR spot to a minority?

BSU and U of I, last year, and you'd know how I know if you would read my other posts here.

Does anyone actually read the whole thread anymore?:confused:
get tired of repeating stuff over and over.:headbang:

Why would a college or a business be encouraged to hire more black people?

Well consider this: 12.9% of the population of the United States is black. Why would colleges and businesses need to try so hard to make their demographics match that figure?
Is it because schools in urban centers with high populations of black children are overcrowded and less likely to attract the best teachers on meager budgets? Is it because children are the products of their parents and their parents are disillusioned undereducated and angry due to an even more lopsided system a generation ago?

Does it matter? How do you fix it? How do you ensure that children are given equal opportunities, that all students get into college on merit alone and that by a happy coincidence, 12.9% of college students are black? How do we ensure that by a happy coincidence, 12.9% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies will be black in the future?

Simple: The cycle has to end. It's a lot easier to encourage 12.9% in colleges and universities than it is to go back in time and repair the damage done to their parents and to their neighborhoods. Perhaps in a generation or two, black children will no longer be the products of disillusioned angry overworked underpaid undereducated parents molded in overcrowded schools by teachers afraid to show up for work. Perhaps in a generation or two, 12.9% will be the norm. But how many generations will it take otherwise?

It's a big problem. But I think the idea that affirmative action can ever solve it is probably misplaced. The reality is that affirmative action does let some people out of the poverty trap (which is a good thing) but does little to actually address the underlying issue. For every person that 'gets out' because of affirmative action, many are left behind. And they are stuck and disadvantaged because the system that caused the problem remains. And lets face it, once people escape poverty, they usually move on completely. It's not as if they are going to move back into the old neighborhood, increase the tax base and lobby for better schools. (And nor should they have to).

So while I'm not against affirmative action, I don't think it is going to ever really produce the desired outcome - a true meritocracy - because the inequalities that justify it won't be solved by it.

The real answer is to actually go in and fix the schools, and fix the crime problem, and actually address the corrosive effects of poverty. Of course that's a very difficult thing to do, so it won't ever happen. And in the meanwhile affirmative action can serve as a sop to suburbia's conscience.

BSU and U of I, last year, and you'd know how I know if you would read my other posts here.

You are probably better off not going. Become a mechanic, you'll make far more money anyway.

No. One of them is a good friend of mine.And the space wasn't really 'reserved'. The headmaster was told, who then told the AO's, that they "need to diversify thier student body."

BSU and U of I, last year, and you'd know how I know if you would read my other posts here.

you mean THAT?

what makes you think that THAT meant that you got rejected so some "quota" that doesnt exist can be filled?

you are assuming that there were no "white" students better than you that also got rejected who, if there werent these non-quota quotas, would have gotten the space you didnt get.

I have an idea.

In order to eliminate whatever special advantages the Minorities have, we make real "Equality"

Which is, everyone has the same rights as everyone else. Minorities shall have the same rights as the Majority. A person of African descent shall be expected to be able to do the same jobs a person of Anglo-Saxon descent can do.

If this doesn't work, then everyone not a part of the government should get poverty and must work their way to amount to anything other than the smelly hobos around them

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

-The Nomadic Peoples Of KnightWish

There will never be equality. "All men are born equal" is a lie. I do not like to say it, but even simply a handicapped man will never be considered the same way as a normal person, not to mention ethnicity.

you mean THAT?

what makes you think that THAT meant that you got rejected so some "quota" that doesnt exist can be filled?

you are assuming that there were no "white" students better than you that also got rejected who, if there werent these non-quota quotas, would have gotten the space you didnt get.

Well, obviously a minority had to have half his GPA; he was a minority. ;)

It's a big problem. But I think the idea that affirmative action can ever solve it is probably misplaced. The reality is that affirmative action does let some people out of the poverty trap (which is a good thing) but does little to actually address the underlying issue. For every person that 'gets out' because of affirmative action, many are left behind. And they are stuck and disadvantaged because the system that caused the problem remains. And lets face it, once people escape poverty, they usually move on completely. It's not as if they are going to move back into the old neighborhood, increase the tax base and lobby for better schools. (And nor should they have to).

So while I'm not against affirmative action, I don't think it is going to ever really produce the desired outcome - a true meritocracy - because the inequalities that justify it won't be solved by it.

The real answer is to actually go in and fix the schools, and fix the crime problem, and actually address the corrosive effects of poverty. Of course that's a very difficult thing to do, so it won't ever happen. And in the meanwhile affirmative action can serve as a sop to suburbia's conscience.

Hippie. :p

you mean THAT?

what makes you think that THAT meant that you got rejected so some "quota" that doesnt exist can be filled?

you are assuming that there were no "white" students better than you that also got rejected who, if there werent these non-quota quotas, would have gotten the space you didnt get.

That's kind of what I was trying to get at: no one would have told him about a quota because quotas don't exist. If they did, the university would be on the firing line in a red hot minutes; the Bakke decision isn't exactly a new or obscure decision.

I will say, however, that there is a reason beyond "breaking the cycle" as LG put it well, for affirmative action. And to explain it I will use myself as an example: I'm a bit smaller version of Horatio Alger as far as education goes. Grew up on a rural farm in a backwater state. Came to a city university. Got a pair of degrees, one in Philosophy and one in Political Science while earning Academic Honors three years straight. I've been working on my MA in Political Science. In the fall, I go to law school on scholarship. And I've done it without any significant financial assistance from anyone except Uncle Sam.

Now, one could argue that if we comprised our entire college class out of go-getters like me, we'd all be better off. I disagree. I disagree because for all my hard work and effort, I still am limited substantially by my perspective of the world. I don't have any real understanding of inner-city life for a family because I've never had a family in a city, nor did I grow up there. I have no experience with minority life because I'm not a minority. To be honest, the closest I'd ever really come to an authentic black experience before about 20 was to flick by UPN every once in a while, which is not exactly a quintessence of black life. But each of these things are crucial for me to know if I was ever going to do the work I wanted to do: civil rights law. By bringing in people with diverse backgrounds, I become a better student for it. To be honest, I think that's a perfectly good tradeoff if they don't have quite the same SAT that I did.

That's kind of what I was trying to get at: no one would have told him about a quota because quotas don't exist. If they did, the university would be on the firing line in a red hot minutes; the Bakke decision isn't exactly a new or obscure decision.

I will say, however, that there is a reason beyond "breaking the cycle" as LG put it well, for affirmative action. And to explain it I will use myself as an example: I'm a bit smaller version of Horatio Alger as far as education goes. Grew up on a rural farm in a backwater state. Came to a city university. Got a pair of degrees, one in Philosophy and one in Political Science while earning Academic Honors three years straight. I've been working on my MA in Political Science. In the fall, I go to law school on scholarship. And I've done it without any significant financial assistance from anyone except Uncle Sam.

Now, one could argue that if we comprised our entire college class out of go-getters like me, we'd all be better off. I disagree. I disagree because for all my hard work and effort, I still am limited substantially by my perspective of the world. I don't have any real understanding of inner-city life for a family because I've never had a family in a city, nor did I grow up there. I have no experience with minority life because I'm not a minority. To be honest, the closest I'd ever really come to an authentic black experience before about 20 was to flick by UPN every once in a while, which is not exactly a quintessence of black life. But each of these things are crucial for me to know if I was ever going to do the work I wanted to do: civil rights law. By bringing in people with diverse backgrounds, I become a better student for it. To be honest, I think that's a perfectly good tradeoff if they don't have quite the same SAT that I did.

Hmm. Excellent point. I didn't even consider geography, demographics or promotion of collegiate diversity.

*sends you tacos* :)

That's kind of what I was trying to get at: no one would have told him about a quota because quotas don't exist. If they did, the university would be on the firing line in a red hot minutes; the Bakke decision isn't exactly a new or obscure decision.

I will say, however, that there is a reason beyond "breaking the cycle" as LG put it well, for affirmative action. And to explain it I will use myself as an example: I'm a bit smaller version of Horatio Alger as far as education goes. Grew up on a rural farm in a backwater state. Came to a city university. Got a pair of degrees, one in Philosophy and one in Political Science while earning Academic Honors three years straight. I've been working on my MA in Political Science. In the fall, I go to law school on scholarship. And I've done it without any significant financial assistance from anyone except Uncle Sam.

Now, one could argue that if we comprised our entire college class out of go-getters like me, we'd all be better off. I disagree. I disagree because for all my hard work and effort, I still am limited substantially by my perspective of the world. I don't have any real understanding of inner-city life for a family because I've never had a family in a city, nor did I grow up there. I have no experience with minority life because I'm not a minority. To be honest, the closest I'd ever really come to an authentic black experience before about 20 was to flick by UPN every once in a while, which is not exactly a quintessence of black life. But each of these things are crucial for me to know if I was ever going to do the work I wanted to do: civil rights law. By bringing in people with diverse backgrounds, I become a better student for it. To be honest, I think that's a perfectly good tradeoff if they don't have quite the same SAT that I did.

which is one reason why colleges and universities strive for a diverse student population. its good for everyone involved.

the notion that some handful of "minority" students has kept someone from attending a state U gets in the way of the reality that almost anyone can get in. if he didnt, its not the minorites "fault".

First of all, you've always wubbed me! :fluffle:
My love for you is 2nd only to my love for Saudi Arabia. ;)
Secondly, if you ever have felt a momentary dislike, it's because I have a nasty tendency to dismantle your claims and unravel your points, while pointing out the many flaws in your arguments. But hey, I'm not the only one to do that, so your wub for me must surely not be eclipsed by such a fleeting emotion.
It must be so cozy living in your own dream world. :)
Thirdly, I never said that you should force equality between things and issues that cannot be equal - that would be silly. (Though I know you have nastier meanings underneath your interpretation.)
Forced equality of humans is forced equality between things that cannot be equal.

What are my nasty meanings underneath my interpretation? They must be so secret and underneath that even I am not aware of them.
Fourthly, regarding your quote: tl;dr
I don't know what "tl;dr" means.
Because as everyone knows, what minority groups want is for everyone else to be dragged down to their level of disadvantage. Gays want everyone to have to hide their sexuality out of fear, for example.
It's like this. In New Orleans before the flood there was massive unenmployment and people living on welfare (and mostly mostly mostly black). Then when it came time to rebuild the city, maaaaaannnnny latinos came to work in New Orleans cuz they saw opportunity for work and a job....then the black community there was bitching about the latinos taking their jobs.....

It's that attitude that is very very prevalent in the black community here, but it's not a racial thing. For example, island blacks and American blacks have serious problems in South Florida because the island blacks take advantage of the jobs here and don't mind "working for whitey"...and in doing so, piss off much of the local black American community. There is a very unhealthy attitude present in the American black community where integrating and taking up a real job is "selling out to whitey" and becoming "an oreo"...and would instead rather bitch and complain about the injustices America has done to their ancestors. News flash. Basically every single group in this country has been discriminated against and has overcome it. Island blacks are doing it as we speak. America Blacks stay behind because they'd rather complain then conform and get a job.

But don't take my word for it. Take Bill Cosby's and all the flack he got from the Black Community for speaking the truth about the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Cake_speech

"The Pound Cake Speech was given by Bill Cosby in May 2004, at an event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. In it, Cosby was highly critical of some members and subsets of the black community in the United States. He criticized the use of African American Vernacular English, the prevalence of single-parent families, the emphasis on material gain at the expense of necessities, and various other social behaviors."

"May 2004 after receiving an award at the celebration of the 50th Anniversary commemoration of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that outlawed school segregation, Cosby made public remarks critical of those blacks who put higher priorities on sports, fashion, and "acting hard" than on education, self-respect, and self-improvement. He has made a plea for African American families to educate their children on the many different aspects of American culture (Baker). According to the Washington Times, he has had a long history of endeavors to advance African Americans (DeBose, Brian)."

Oh, and he's not really saying anything. His needlessly long post suggests that he may have a point, but he has yet to actually make it.
Perhaps you failed reading comp. I said, very cleary, (I believe it was even bolded) "never make equal what is unequal". Cleary I was speaking about humanity.

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

Are you sure you didn't get turned down by those colleges because you can't spell?

Why do I have a hard time believing the OP is old enough for college?

Now, one could argue that if we comprised our entire college class out of go-getters like me, we'd all be better off. I disagree. I disagree because for all my hard work and effort, I still am limited substantially by my perspective of the world. I don't have any real understanding of inner-city life for a family because I've never had a family in a city, nor did I grow up there. I have no experience with minority life because I'm not a minority. To be honest, the closest I'd ever really come to an authentic black experience before about 20 was to flick by UPN every once in a while, which is not exactly a quintessence of black life. But each of these things are crucial for me to know if I was ever going to do the work I wanted to do: civil rights law. By bringing in people with diverse backgrounds, I become a better student for it. To be honest, I think that's a perfectly good tradeoff if they don't have quite the same SAT that I did.

Yah, but a JD is a professional degree, so what you are saying is that you a basically underqualified for what you want to do. Not that there is a problem with society per se.

Can I ask how they are disadvantaged, first?

Well, just to start: black people were owned as property for a few hundred years, set "free" and could find almost no one to hire them 150 years ago, finally achieved civil rights everyone else already had (like the right to not get strung up in a god damn tree) 40 years ago, and still face harsher prison sentences and more imprisonment than their white counterparts.

Blacks also could not inherit property even after emancipation for a long time, so that any achievement by an individual was negated in the following generation. People love to say "white immigrants came here and flourished", but they could amass wealth and pass it on, and give their children better educations.

That was in the past. It's different now. If not, How come I got denied access to 2 diferent Universities becuase they had "too many" white students?

Again, are you sure it wasn't your spelling?

Too mcuh equality by means of government assistance only harms the reciever. By giving out money to dysfuncional communities all you ensure is that they abuse it on drugs. By pushing people through education who are not properly qualified you only bring down everyone elses standing.

The best way to reach equailty I believe is to back off and let people succed or fail on their own. All of this guestering only leads the minority to grow a sense of "entitlement" to things that are not allowed for the rest of the population. AND that the rest of the population must pay for.

Have you ever heard of a news story or statement from a minority leader saying "We are fine now" "We have been acepted fairly into society"? All this equality does is seperate the minority group that moves of the racist assumption that because a person is from that group they are unable to care from themselves and need the nanny state to throw heaps of money their way.

Okay, seriously, you guys need to learn to spell. Otherwise I just can't yell at you seriously.

I think you have very little actual knowledge of and experience with minority aid. You seem to buy into the myths of the welfare queen and the minority who's "happy to take your money but not join your group". This is not the truth as I have seen and studied (in college, where I managed to be accepted despite being white!).

The fact is, many minority groups face challenges both from discrimination in the past, such as the inability to inherit wealth for many generations, and in the present. Despite the myth of the lazy minority on welfare, 61% of welfare recipients are white. In contrast, 12% of black males are currently incarcerated, compared to 1.7% of white males. It is a fact that in most cases, black males receive harsher prison sentences than white males for the same crimes; possession of crack cocaine carries a longer sentences than possession of an equal amount of powder cocaine, despite the fact that the single difference between the two is baking soda.

To address your comment about "pushing people through education who are not qualified": My boyfriend, a black male who grew up in West Oakland, grew up in a single-family household (father, not mother), occasionally got food stamps as a child to buy government peanut butter and cheese, and graduated from high school with an unimpressive 3.0 GPA. He also (after having to FIGHT school counselors who wanted to keep him out) took several AP classes in high school and scored above 1400 on the SATs. He got a full ride to college, partly because of his income bracket and partly, I'm sure, because he is a minority. Before college he did not know how to use a computer; his high school could not afford them. Now he's a software engineer, working a million hours a week and still getting more work and criticism from his employers because of his race.

My point is: you can look down from a place and privilege and criticize minorities for "needing a nanny state", but you've never been a smart, ambitious black man who got harassed by police officers, denied access to high-quality education, and lived in a neighborhood of constant danger. I'm glad as hell there's affirmative action, and my intelligent, hard-working boyfriend isn't stuck behind a fast-food counter because his family couldn't pay tuition fees.

Ossama Obama;13767226']Witness the blistering buffoons praise their god, Equality, like true fetishists. Ever pathetic, ever fools.

You're my new favorite troll!

It's a big problem. But I think the idea that affirmative action can ever solve it is probably misplaced. The reality is that affirmative action does let some people out of the poverty trap (which is a good thing) but does little to actually address the underlying issue. For every person that 'gets out' because of affirmative action, many are left behind. And they are stuck and disadvantaged because the system that caused the problem remains. And lets face it, once people escape poverty, they usually move on completely. It's not as if they are going to move back into the old neighborhood, increase the tax base and lobby for better schools. (And nor should they have to).

So while I'm not against affirmative action, I don't think it is going to ever really produce the desired outcome - a true meritocracy - because the inequalities that justify it won't be solved by it.

The real answer is to actually go in and fix the schools, and fix the crime problem, and actually address the corrosive effects of poverty. Of course that's a very difficult thing to do, so it won't ever happen. And in the meanwhile affirmative action can serve as a sop to suburbia's conscience.

I agree. Where we need affirmative action is at the beginning of a person's life--we need better health care, better education and more opportunities for kids. Which is of course why the government axed head start and free lunches. Sadly, it is much easier to throw a little money at people in college than to spend a lot in childhood to make things right. Schools in low-income areas receive far less money, pay teachers less, and thus have fewer highly qualified teachers (and those they have are overburdened). And NCLB is only making it worse--budget cuts have been phenomenal this year, the cap on class size just went up, etc. etc. Don't get me started on the government and schools, we'll be here all day.

'Minorities' have to many special privalages.

Zero is too many?

An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist.

No, it isn't... and virtually no one considers it to be.

I almost always use "Black."

Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill.

No, they don't. Quotas are illegal.

Repeat this to yourself as many times as you need for it to sink in... it seems to be something most opponents of affirmative action stubbornly resist acknowledging.

When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA.

What nonsense. You (almost certainly) have no idea why you were rejected. Quotas are illegal. And affirmative action programs generally don't admit students with "half the GPA." That's not how they actually work.

If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't?

Your question assumes something that is false.

What nonsense. You (almost certainly) have no idea why you were rejected.

i have always wondered how even the lunatics we get around here can read 'quotas!!!1!!' into the form letter rejections they get. i mean, it's just too fucking stupid for words.

of course, maybe they just have severe comprehension issues, which would explain both the rejections and the inability to learn and understand things...

You know, I find it interesting that every time I hear people complaining about how a college's admissions policies are unfair and discriminatory, all they complain about is race.

It's funny, because legacies get a big bonus, too - much bigger in the "points" systems I've seen than the one for being a member of an ethnic minority. So do successful athletes, or anyone famous or related to someone famous. And yet, somehow, I don't hear people whining endlessly about the fact that any member of the Bush family is a shoo-in at Yale even if they show up with a 1.5 GPA, or about the fact that "their spot" at school was given away to some football player - those things are fine; famous people's kids obviously deserve to get into the best schools regardless of their intelligence or abilities, but smart black kids from crappy high schools? Screw them. They're just stealing all the obviously superior white kids' spots! :rolleyes:

You know, I find it interesting that every time I hear people complaining about how a college's admissions policies are unfair and discriminatory, all they complain about is race.

It's funny, because legacies get a big bonus, too - much bigger in the "points" systems I've seen than the one for being a member of an ethnic minority. So do successful athletes, or anyone famous or related to someone famous. And yet, somehow, I don't hear people whining endlessly about the fact that any member of the Bush family is a shoo-in at Yale even if they show up with a 1.5 GPA, or about the fact that "their spot" at school was given away to some football player - those things are fine; famous people's kids obviously deserve to get into the best schools regardless of their intelligence or abilities, but smart black kids from crappy high schools? Screw them. They're just stealing all the obviously superior white kids' spots! :rolleyes:

I don't begrudge athletes, because a scholarship is the only way some people can afford college, and because their hard work and talent got them to where they are just like everyone else--just in a different field. I do think that some universities exploit athletes and allow them to cut corners in their education, though, which is really a disservice to the students. Most NCAA athletes will not turn pro, and too many sacrifice a virtually free education for college sports.

I don't even want to think about how much it pisses me off that rich people get into select colleges just for having a famous last name or donating a few hundred grand. George W. Bush went to freakin' YALE and I've got about two grade points, 400 SAT points and 50 IQ points on him. :(

Black children are more likely to receive a lower standard of education and grow up in a single parent household. Both these factors have been shown to impede one's chance of success. So they don't have the same chance of success.

Let me start by saying, I'm white.

I grew up in a single parent household.
My family income when i was growing up was less than $15,000 a year with my mother, 2 brothers, and my sister well below the poverty level.
After graduating from High school I put myself through college at my own expense, I got a very small amount in government grants, some scholarships from my school because I busted my ass but in the end over $40,000 was spent by myself, which I got through loans.

I'm every bit as disadvantaged as many of the people who grew up in a minority background but I do not have access to any of these affirmative action programs that are in place for people of a different ethnicity than myself.

Is that a fair argument for why affirmative action is not a good policy?

Is that a fair argument for why affirmative action is not a good policy?

no

no

Reason? Or are we just trolling?

Reason? Or are we just trolling?

because you didn't show anything other than the existence of economic inequality. it hardly seems believable that anyone actually believes there is only one sort of hardship, or even that there is only one sort of hardship worth doing something about.

because you didn't show anything other than the existence of economic inequality. it hardly seems believable that anyone actually believes there is only one sort of hardship, or even that there is only one sort of hardship worth doing something about.

Could be rabbit, could be.

However I was merely making my argument as a counterpoint to the most common argument used in this thread. Such as the one Cosmopoles used. (and I quoted)

Could be rabbit, could be.

However I was merely making my argument as a counterpoint to the most common argument used in this thread. Such as the one Cosmopoles used. (and I quoted)

but it just flat out isn't a counterpoint. unless there can be only one sort of hardship that needs addressing (or can be addressed), you haven't shown anything at all. and even if that were the case, you wouldn't have shown that your hardship is more deserving of addressing anyways.

Let me start by saying, I'm white.

I grew up in a single parent household.
My family income when i was growing up was less than $15,000 a year with my mother, 2 brothers, and my sister well below the poverty level.
After graduating from High school I put myself through college at my own expense, I got a very small amount in government grants, some scholarships from my school because I busted my ass but in the end over $40,000 was spent by myself, which I got through loans.

I'm every bit as disadvantaged as many of the people who grew up in a minority background but I do not have access to any of these affirmative action programs that are in place for people of a different ethnicity than myself.

Is that a fair argument for why affirmative action is not a good policy?

Did you even read the read the part where its the greater majority of African-American are born into low socio-economic status? That's not to say it doesn't happen to anyone else. It just so happens that proportionally African Americans have it worse. So congratulations on not understanding and using anectdotal evidence.

Or are you just trolling?

Minorities get special rights because Europeans and the United States inslaved them for around 500-600 years :P
But, in the modern day world it is kind of riddiculous

Did you even read the read the part where its the greater majority of African-American are born into low socio-economic status? That's not to say it doesn't happen to anyone else. It just so happens that proportionally African Americans have it worse. So congratulations on not understanding and using anectdotal evidence.

Or are you just trolling?

What I am meaning to say, is that it should either be available to everyone who comes from these type of disadvantaged backgrounds or to nobody at all. It shouldn't matter whether one is black or white, or pink, or whatever color. For the idea to be of any true merit what so ever it should be available to anyone who suffers from poor education, poor economics, etc, etc. ect.

What I am meaning to say, is that it should either be available to everyone who comes from these type of disadvantaged backgrounds or to nobody at all. It shouldn't matter whether one is black or white, or pink, or whatever color. For the idea to be of any true merit what so ever it should be available to anyone who suffers from poor education, poor economics, etc, etc. ect.

wait, so you actually do believe that there aren't multiple distinct types of hardships and barriers that people face? you don't believe that race is its very own independent thing?

wait, so you actually do believe that there aren't multiple distinct types of hardships and barriers that people face? you don't believe that race is its very own independent thing?

I believe that race shouldn't be a hardship or barrier and as long as we as a society continue to treat it as one it will continue to be one.

Minorities get special rights because Europeans and the United States inslaved them for around 500-600 years :P
But, in the modern day world it is kind of riddiculous
LOL YEA ITS ALL IN THE PAST RIGHT THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN OVER IT BY NOW
What I am meaning to say, is that it should either be available to everyone who comes from these type of disadvantaged backgrounds or to nobody at all. It shouldn't matter whether one is black or white, or pink, or whatever color. For the idea to be of any true merit what so ever it should be available to anyone who suffers from poor education, poor economics, etc, etc. ect.

Forgive me, I'm not from the U.S. Are there really government institutions that discriminate on race? I can understand your outrage if government agencies have biases in favour of minorities, but if they're not part of the state I don't see how you can complain.

I do think the same help should be given to all those on the same section of the socio-economic scale if the government doesn't do so.

Then tell them to stop spending their welfare cheques on alcohol!

I've always figured food stamps to be the better way to solve alcohol abuse than just cheques. Although there's no helping it if they sell off the food for booze and choose to starve instead.

Forgive me, I'm not from the U.S. Are there really government institutions that discriminate on race? I can understand your outrage if government agencies have biases in favour of minorities, but if they're not part of the state I don't see how you can complain.

I do think the same help should be given to all those on the same section of the socio-economic scale if the government doesn't do so.

Its a bit more complicated than that as all things in the government tend to be. There are for instance more incentives for minorities than their are for non minorities of similar situations. In the one college I applied to being used as an example they had a special scholarships available for people of ethnicity but white students were not eligible. There were plenty of scholarships available to everyone but there was not a single scholarship only available to Anglo Americans while there was almost a dozen for Black, Native American, Foreign, and Hispanic students exclusively.

I don't see it as equaling out the playing field as much as crippling the system with good intentions. I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its flawed.

Posted on 14 Jun

A couple of thoughts on the discussion so far:

1. People are inherently unequal and you will never have equality in outcome.

2. Affirmative action is legal in the United States. There have been US Supreme Court rulings against specific local laws related to using race as a point of selection for school admissions, but there is no federal law banning affirmative action. I challenge anyone to find one in the United States Code (<http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USCODE/index.html>).

3. Affirmative action based on race still exists in the US and here is an example. In 2005, Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung analyzed the effect of admission preferences at elite universities and used data from 1997 for their analysis. Overall, the elite universities accepted of 21.9% applications. Along gender lines, the percentage admitted was about the same – around 21%. However, along race lines the numbers skewed:
White – composed 51.4% of applicants, 23.8% admitted
Black – composed 9.0% of applicants, 33.7% admitted
Hispanic – composed 7.9% of applicants, 26.8% admitted
Asian – composed 23.7% of applicants, 17.6% admitted
Other – composed 7.9% of applicants, 16.3% admitted.

They also found that athletes and legacy applicants (child of an alumnus/a) really skewed the numbers:
Athlete - composed 4.5% of applicants, 49.3% admitted
Legacy - composed 3.1% of applicants, 46.5% admitted

In their conclusions, the authors stated that eliminating affirmative action would have reduce the acceptance rate for African-Americans and Hispanics by one-half to two-thirds. White applicants would not benefit much with only a rise of 0.5 percentage points. However, Asian Americans (a minority group) would have benefitted with an estimated one-third rise in the number accepted. They also stated that while the athlete and legacy are disproportionately white, their overall numbers are so low that they do not impact opportunities for minorities.

Source: Espenshade, Thomas J., and Chang Y. Chung. “The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities.” SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 86, Number 2, June 2005. <http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf>

4. Affirmative action is now often referred to as diversity in the workplace or something similar.

There were plenty of scholarships available to everyone but there was not a single scholarship only available to Anglo Americans while there was almost a dozen for Black, Native American, Foreign, and Hispanic students exclusively.

this is hard to believe. there are all sorts of scholarships available for various white ancestries - i'm sure the english have one or two; the irish do and so do the italians, etc. then there are all the ones that are de facto white only, by being linked to social organizations which through either open exclusion or a history of segregation lack anyone else to give scholarships to within their membership.

Let me start by saying, I'm white.

I grew up in a single parent household.
My family income when i was growing up was less than $15,000 a year with my mother, 2 brothers, and my sister well below the poverty level.
After graduating from High school I put myself through college at my own expense, I got a very small amount in government grants, some scholarships from my school because I busted my ass but in the end over $40,000 was spent by myself, which I got through loans.

I'm every bit as disadvantaged as many of the people who grew up in a minority background but I do not have access to any of these affirmative action programs that are in place for people of a different ethnicity than myself.

Is that a fair argument for why affirmative action is not a good policy?

Once again, I don't support affirmative action. I was simply pointing out that people who oppose affirmative action based on ideas like 'everyone has equal opportunities already' are living a lie.

Finally, don't blame affirmative action on the fact you weren't good enough to get in

But if both have the exact same qualities, then due to affirmative action, and the fact that some women will have a bitch about sexism in the workplace, the women will be hired over the man. So in order for a male to be selected the male has to work harder to get at the same spot, than the female, yes that is true 'equality' :rolleyes:

From an Australian perspective, we do see this:
Some Australian Aborigines expect the same rights as us, but without the responsibilities. They expect the welfare cheques, they expect the government assistance but they do not want to be useful members of the community.

This is exactly right, some want to be treated equally but, then demand special considerations, which is way we see, rapists only get a few moths in jail whereas anyone else would find themselves in jail for quite a few years.

Of course I have to laugh at so called 'equality' when you read job adveritisments that state "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders need only to apply" If that was done in any other race there would be roits.

You know, I find it interesting that every time I hear people complaining about how a college's admissions policies are unfair and discriminatory, all they complain about is race.

It's funny, because legacies get a big bonus, too - much bigger in the "points" systems I've seen than the one for being a member of an ethnic minority. So do successful athletes, or anyone famous or related to someone famous. And yet, somehow, I don't hear people whining endlessly about the fact that any member of the Bush family is a shoo-in at Yale even if they show up with a 1.5 GPA, or about the fact that "their spot" at school was given away to some football player - those things are fine; famous people's kids obviously deserve to get into the best schools regardless of their intelligence or abilities, but smart black kids from crappy high schools? Screw them. They're just stealing all the obviously superior white kids' spots! :rolleyes:

I complain about it constantly. The American college system is to put it bluntly whack.

Is that a fair argument for why affirmative action is not a good policy?

No, because you are not a minority so your opinion means nothing and I don't care if you are from a disadvantaged community, you can stuff boxes for the rich people your entire life, the only way you are going to get special treatment is if you change the colour of your skin, since you are not the right colour you don't deserve anything so go back to your hole of a home and live the rest of your life in poverty unemployed living off welfare checks while your coloured friends from the same area as you get special treatment so they don't have to live in poverty ever again.

But many minority groups are disadvantaged. How do you intend to make them less disadvantaged?

Disadvantaged in what sense?

Because historical precedent seems to be what disadvantaged them and it's kind of hard to correct.

But if both have the exact same qualities, then due to affirmative action, and the fact that some women will have a bitch about sexism in the workplace, the women will be hired over the man. So in order for a male to be selected the male has to work harder to get at the same spot, than the female, yes that is true 'equality' :rolleyes:

Can I join your magical country where qualified women get hired ahead of men? Because every study done says the OPPOSITE is true. And women who *are* hired are paid $.75 for every $1 a man is paid to do the same job (that's white women, of course... minority women make *less*).

Because in order for them to achieve the level of success that you have, they must be given special advantages.

Thats such utter bullshit and you know it. Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Native Americans, and all other ethnic groups are completely equal in all regards exactly the way it should be. They don't need "Special" priviledges to achieve, because there are plenty of blacks, hispanics, and all other minorities have achieved much success without these, and will for eons to come. Hiding behind "affirmitive Action" is just a way for the blacks to continue they're path of being lazy and unproductive while expecting hand outs. This does not apply to all blacks, many are normal contributers to society, but many are not. This is not a racist statement, I'm the least racist person in this forum I guarantee you, but it is quite true. Statistically many blacks are on welfare, do not have jobs, and are, for lack of a better term, useless. As are just as many, if not more, hispanics (who are probably worse in that they don't even pay taxes or are citizens many times yet expect the same benefits as American Citizens, which gives the actual, legitimate hispanic community a bad, undeserved reputation) who gank the system. Not to say there aren't white men who do it too, but the fact remains that if a person is willing to put in the effort, he can achieve. And I'd like to add that I too am a part of the minority as a Native American (Cherokee). And while yes, I also happen to be Serbian, German, and a few other ethnic groups, my ancestors of the cherokee side of me were quite wealthy and successful in a time where it was not really realistic for them to be. So I do not, for a moment, buy into the affirmative action speel. Not. At. All.

Can I join your magical country where qualified women get hired ahead of men? Because every study done says the OPPOSITE is true. And women who *are* hired are paid $.75 for every $1 a man is paid to do the same job (that's white women, of course... minority women make *less*).

Didn't I say some women would have a bitch about it, gee how many times I have read this in the paper. And you know what have you every stopped to think that not all jobs everyone is paid exactly the same some are but I know women and they are paid the exact same as the guys, the same overtime rates and the and holidays.

Of course then there are jobs where people are paid on their performance and how they have worked over the past year, not everyone is paid the same in that job, but hey if a women didn't meet her objectives as well as a male then even though she hasn't worked as well (not because she is a women but because she didn't perform as well) she should get paid the same, because hey that is true equality.

Of course then there are those studies that calculate the average income of women and place it against the average income of men, and if women are less they claim it is because of sexism, not because maybe just maybe that women are in lower paying jobs than some other men, not because they are forced to accept a lower pay rate but because they do not want to work in industries where the pay rate is higher, not because they aren't allowed.

Didn't I say some women would have a bitch about it, gee how many times I have read this in the paper. And you know what have you every stopped to think that not all jobs everyone is paid exactly the same some are but I know women and they are paid the exact same as the guys, the same overtime rates and the and holidays.

Of course then there are jobs where people are paid on their performance and how they have worked over the past year, not everyone is paid the same in that job, but hey if a women didn't meet her objectives as well as a male then even though she hasn't worked as well (not because she is a women but because she didn't perform as well) she should get paid the same, because hey that is true equality.

Of course then there are those studies that calculate the average income of women and place it against the average income of men, and if women are less they claim it is because of sexism, not because maybe just maybe that women are in lower paying jobs than some other men, not because they are forced to accept a lower pay rate but because they do not want to work in industries where the pay rate is higher, not because they aren't allowed.

The ¨some women have a bitch¨ bit was unnecessary.

The ¨some women have a bitch¨ bit was unnecessary.

Maybe but in the post that was quoted I said some might and it did. Sorry to offend you Nanatsu apologies.

Maybe but in the post that was quoted I said some might and it did. Sorry to offend you Nanatsu apologies.

Just checking, no offense taken.

Just checking, no offense taken.

Good I am glad.

Didn't I say some women would have a bitch about it, gee how many times I have read this in the paper. And you know what have you every stopped to think that not all jobs everyone is paid exactly the same some are but I know women and they are paid the exact same as the guys, the same overtime rates and the and holidays.

Of course then there are jobs where people are paid on their performance and how they have worked over the past year, not everyone is paid the same in that job, but hey if a women didn't meet her objectives as well as a male then even though she hasn't worked as well (not because she is a women but because she didn't perform as well) she should get paid the same, because hey that is true equality.

Of course then there are those studies that calculate the average income of women and place it against the average income of men, and if women are less they claim it is because of sexism, not because maybe just maybe that women are in lower paying jobs than some other men, not because they are forced to accept a lower pay rate but because they do not want to work in industries where the pay rate is higher, not because they aren't allowed.

I refuse to respond to or even ponder any of the points you've presented until you state them in a form of English which is understandable, recognizable and correctly spelled.

The ¨some women have a bitch¨ bit was unnecessary.

You're being too nice, Natasu--the entire post was unnecessary.

Maybe but in the post that was quoted I said some might and it did. Sorry to offend you Nanatsu apologies.

What a phenomenal judgment. By your terms, I could make a post saying "all men are stupid arrogant idiots, but I'm sure some BITCHY men will object" and then point to it as proof of my assertion when any man objects. I'm sure you think this is a terribly clever little strategy, but everyone with half a brain has already abandoned your pathetic arguments--I'm just bored enough to read your ramblings.

Of course then there are those studies that calculate the average income of women and place it against the average income of men, and if women are less they claim it is because of sexism, not because maybe just maybe that women are in lower paying jobs than some other men

*chuckles*

My love for you is 2nd only to my love for Saudi Arabia. ;)
Thank the Gods. If you had actually liked me, I would have had to end my existence. Seriously. We lack good conservatives on this forum. We lack vocal and intelligent posters who claim to belong to the political right. Your posts, however, are an embarrassment to any such posters, and I would not be surprised if people have refrained from posting their views because they wouldn't want to be associated with you. I know I would feel uncomfortable walking down the same street as you.

So thank you. I appreciate you saying that. It really makes me happy :)

It must be so cozy living in your own dream world. :)
You would know. I can only speculate.

Forced equality of humans is forced equality between things that cannot be equal.
And that's bullshit. Unless, of course, you really are a proponent of legal systems like Sharia. Then again, you might actually be serious about loving Saudi Arabia...

Humans can, will, and are equal in the eyes of the law. Even if you dream about an apartheid system and want to see people being treated as inferiors based on physical traits alone - well, that's your dream, and it doesn't change reality.

What are my nasty meanings underneath my interpretation? They must be so secret and underneath that even I am not aware of them.
I wouldn't be surprised if you lacked that insight or managed to fool yourself into thinking that it's not there. I think I can safely claim that the rest of NSG isn't as easily deluded.

I don't know what "tl;dr" means.
Your lack of Google abilities doesn't concern me.

Anyone can blame their life on anything
Race, gender, alcahol, drugs, politicians, education, boss, family, disability and so on

Heres an idea. Look at yourself first. Claiming there is a bias set up against you can create your own failure. Look at the democratic nominations. From the start there was going to be an accusation of sexism or racism depending upon who won. Either way there was to be disrimination.

No one who truly wants equality would complain. Thoes who strongly identify themselves as Black or Female say an excuse. When it came down to it thoe the main one who complained or commented about discrimination where the democratic nominees themselves.

Everyone get over the fact that you are may be a minority. Look at yourself and dont demand a special priveleage such as less jail, extra money or more say simply because you were borne somewhere else.

Discrimination most often grows of the accusation of disrcimination. look at the OJ simspon trial. White = guilty, black = not guilty. But who actually sat through the trial and listened to every word?? The juries most likely got it right. Whilst most likely guilty of rape there was not enough proof for jail.

Anyone can blame their life on anything
Race, gender, alcahol, drugs, politicians, education, boss, family, disability and so on

Heres an idea. Look at yourself first. Claiming there is a bias set up against you can create your own failure. Look at the democratic nominations. From the start there was going to be an accusation of sexism or racism depending upon who won. Either way there was to be disrimination.

No one who truly wants equality would complain. Thoes who strongly identify themselves as Black or Female say an excuse. When it cam down to it thoe the main one who complained or commented about discrimination where the democratic nominees themselves.

Everyone get over the fact that you are may be a minority. Look at yourself and dont demand a special priveleage such as less jail, extra money or more say simply because you were borne somewhere else.

Discrimination most often grows of the accusation of disrcimination. look at the OJ simspon trial. White = guilty, black = not guilty. But who actually sat through the trial and listened to every word?? The juries most likely got it right. Whilst most likely guilty of rape there was not enough proof for jail.

*chuckles*

What do you deny, that some women work in jobs that are normally paid less, than other jobs which some men work in. My main example would be the mining industry in Australia, now at the moment a article was saying only 7% of women worked in this industry, now this is nothing to do about women not being allowed to join it is because they are not applying for these jobs. Should we force women to work in an industry they don't want to, so that the ratio is a bit even? Perhaps people would pefer that those that apply even if they may not be the best qualified for the job should automatically get the job in order to make the balance equal? Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the gender at all and just apply the best person for the job?

Ryadn that is the cowards way out.

What do you deny, that some women work in jobs that are normally paid less, than other jobs which some men work in. My main example would be the mining industry in Australia, now at the moment a article was saying only 7% of women worked in this industry, now this is nothing to do about women not being allowed to join it is because they are not applying for these jobs. Should we force women to work in an industry they don't want to, so that the ratio is a bit even? Perhaps people would pefer that those that apply even if they may not be the best qualified for the job should automatically get the job in order to make the balance equal? Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the gender at all and just apply the best person for the job?

Ryadn that is the cowards way out.

no what she wants to point out is that women are paid less when all other factors are removed.

but that would involve looking up the relevant studies and that doesnt seem worth the effort with you.

so she doesnt.

and neither do i.

Of course then there are those studies that calculate the average income of women and place it against the average income of men, and if women are less they claim it is because of sexism, not because maybe just maybe that women are in lower paying jobs than some other men, not because they are forced to accept a lower pay rate but because they do not want to work in industries where the pay rate is higher, not because they aren't allowed.

What jobs are these, why are they paid less, and why do women "choose" to work in lower paying jobs?

Do not doubts teh equality! For some of us are more equal than others it would seem.

Everyone get over the fact that you are may be a minority. Look at yourself and dont demand a special priveleage such as less jail, extra money or more say simply because you were borne somewhere else.


And what of the minorities who get more jail, have less money and less say?

And what of the minorities who get more jail, have less money and less say?

Get over it!

Also, did you know minorities are born in different places than white people? I didn't. I always thought people born somewhere else who moved to a different country were called "immigrants".

If a women chooses pregnancy and decides to stay home she has decided to put her job on hold. It is a personal decision to have a child. They could always choose not to be a stay at home mum for a year.

A white male can choose to get drunk every night and loose his future pay rise prospects as a result. The same white male could move to South Africa where he white people have been forced of their land by a truly racist regime.

The western world gives you a chance. If you take actions to fail you will fail. If you are borne a genius with a photographic memmory you have a head start. If you work hard you can get where you want to go.

Or you could just blankly blame society after you get high and loose your job as a result after going off at the manager.

If a women chooses pregnancy and decides to stay home she has decided to put her job on hold. It is a personal decision to have a child. They could always choose not to be a stay at home mum for a year.

A white male can choose to get drunk every night and loose his future pay rise prospects as a result. The same white male could move to South Africa where he white people have been forced of their land by a truly racist regime.

The western world gives you a chance. If you take actions to fail you will fail. If you are borne a genius with a photographic memmory you have a head start. If you work hard you can get where you want to go.

Or you could just blankly blame society after you get high and loose your job as a result after going off at the manager.

Yes, if a woman chooses to have a child and stay home, that is a personal decision. The fact that many employers choose to hire/promote men over women because women have the capacity to become pregnant, even if they choose not to, is not a personal choice. It is discrimination.

Oh, man, South Africa... the only place the white man is beaten down! After hundreds of years of tyranny! Yes, white men are greatly persecuted in this world.

There's no point in even discussing this further if you refuse to recognize that racism exists in the world. I can provide you with a thousand examples, but you're set against believing it, so I won't waste my time.

Or you could just blankly blame society after you get high and loose your job as a result after going off at the manager.

You loose a ravenous hound. You lose a job.

The headmaster was told, who then told the AO's, that they "need to diversify thier student body."

With what? Piercings?

Yes South Africa is amongst the only area where the white man is beaten down. They get beaten down to death there unlike a western society. Other examples of true racism include jews and christians in the islamic world. There is not a single christian church of jewish temple in palestine or Iran or other surrounding regions. In tibet there is another case of religous vilification.

But whats the big difference about them and us.

In a western society we prosecute people who are racist, they dont.
In a western society the disabled, blacks, asians, women and all religous can vote freely
In a western society everyone has an education that they can either utilize or skip as its politically incorrect to remove children into education
In a western society people can raise and fall upon their own merits

I accept what happened in the past but how long do you wish to carry the excuse of past misdeads. By having an excuse you accept a lower level of achievment. This new lower level of achievment is then again viewed as an act of discrimination. This means you have a new excuse for your generation.

The best way to avoid all of this is by stopping these excuses after generations have been accepted into society. The continuation of the past deads being used as an excuse for an individuals actions only prepetuate the problem.

Blame yourself first, second and third. Then move on to society

Yes South Africa is amongst the only area where the white man is beaten down. They get beaten down to death there unlike a western society. Other examples of true racism include jews and christians in the islamic world. There is not a single christian church of jewish temple in palestine or Iran or other surrounding regions. In tibet there is another case of religous vilification.

But whats the big difference about them and us.

In a western society we prosecute people who are racist, they dont.
In a western society the disabled, blacks, asians, women and all religous can vote freely
In a western society everyone has an education that they can either utilize or skip as its politically incorrect to remove children into education
In a western society people can raise and fall upon their own merits

I accept what happened in the past but how long do you wish to carry the excuse of past misdeads. By having an excuse you accept a lower level of achievment. This new lower level of achievment is then again viewed as an act of discrimination. This means you have a new excuse for your generation.

The best way to avoid all of this is by stopping these excuses after generations have been accepted into society. The continuation of the past deads being used as an excuse for an individuals actions only prepetuate the problem.

Blame yourself first, second and third. Then move on to society

Yea, fuck those kids who grew up with brothers and sisters, had childhood diseases, in an economically depressed area with only a single mum to take care of them. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps right?

There is not a single christian church of jewish temple

CCJT? Is that some kind of weird fundie sect?

Ossama Obama;13767226']Witness the blistering buffoons praise their god, Equality, like true fetishists. Ever pathetic, ever fools.

Good sir, should I wish to wank off at Equality, then it is my right - nay, duty - to do so.

Disease is something that is ongoing. In a western society (NOTE I SAY WESTERN) you have the oppurtunity to rise and fall. You can go to a public hospital to cure your illness. Then you have the right to get drunk of welfare and end up in the hospital again. Any idea of quaranteen of "your money" which is actually the governments is deemed wrong.

The person to blame in western societies is yourself. The idea of an economically depressed area in a western society is a choice. You can live where there is high unemployment and complain you cant get a job. Or you could move elsewhere into one of the more economically preferable areas. Prehaps take up a job as a farm hand. We are short of thoes. Or a trade. Short of them again. Join the mining boom if your in Australia. No experience is neccessary. Get a retail job in a city where supermarkets are currently VERY difficult to get fired from if you dont plan to a)steal, b) fight or c) swear and actually intend to work.

Thats the marvelous thing about freedom in a western society. You can choose to succeed or fail. The scenario you described is a bad start but there is nothing to say you cant overcome it. Just look at the current Australian Prime Minister.

Disease is something that is ongoing. In a western society (NOTE I SAY WESTERN) you have the oppurtunity to rise and fall. You can go to a public hospital to cure your illness. Then you have the right to get drunk of welfare and end up in the hospital again.

If the illness to which you refer is the blight known as "poverty", I would certainly support measures to build public hospitals to attend those afflicted with it.

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

-The Nomadic Peoples Of KnightWish


You do have a point, 'positive discrimination' is still discrimination. What is rubbish though is this assertion that calling a black man, black, is racist, of course it is not.

What jobs are these, why are they paid less, and why do women "choose" to work in lower paying jobs?

Take teaching for example rather than an engineer working for a mining company. Now some woman just like some men choose to go into this profession and are paid less, now if a greater number of wome are in teaching and a greater number are men in the mining industry where they are paid more not because they are men like some people like to claim but because they are working in higher paying jobs.

Let us also run with the teaching example, both genders are paid the same provided everything else is the same such as same number of years and same position. If we look at engineers working for a mining company they are not paid the same rates, why? Because they recieve pay rises based on performance. Now if a man works harder and provides greater value to shareholders than a women then he is rightly paid more not because he is a man but because he met his objectives better than the women. Now some people use this example as inequality of wages in regards to gender, when that is not the reason at all.

But many minority groups are disadvantaged. How do you intend to make them less disadvantaged?

Organically. They can work their way up the social and economic scale like anybody else, not handed irresponsible, artificial and unwarranted advantages.

Organically. They can work their way up the social and economic scale like anybody else, not handed irresponsible, artificial and unwarranted advantages.

Heh, not with people like you above them on the social ladder, stomping on their fingers every time they reach up a rung, because you don't want to share the privileges you think belong to you. (Sorry, this just brought back so many posts of yours I've read in so many threads.)

Ossama Obama;13767226']Witness the blistering buffoons praise their god, Equality, like true fetishists. Ever pathetic, ever fools.

Kudos on the Shadows of Amn quote. Gotta love Irenicus.

<snip>

Forced equality of humans is forced equality between things that cannot be equal.

What are my nasty meanings underneath my interpretation? They must be so secret and underneath that even I am not aware of them.

<snip>

Asked and answered. You first stated your "nasty meanings" and then asked what they are.

It is the same attitude as expressed in the OP title question. "Too Much 'Equality'?" implies that the problem with society is that people are treated equally. This leads one to the conclusion that the OP (and you and others like you) prefer a world that is unequal, where you have privileges above others.

Of course, this means that you must live in a world surrounded by people who are suffering socially, but that doesn't seem to bother you -- maybe because you don't realize that Gilbert and Sullivan were joking when they stated (in the operetta "The Gondoliers") that "when everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody."

The term "nasty meaning" was a characterization of your apparent belief that you deserve to have a better life than your neighbor because you are in some way inherent superior. Of course, not everyone would agree as to who the "superior" people are, so those who advocate for unequal societies are really just setting themselves up for a fall. Silly, short-sighted creatures.

There can never be "too much equality".
However measures that benefit a particular race or other minority contradict the principle of equality. Positive discrimination is discrimination too.
The principle of equality means that you will not be discriminated, i.e. treated differently, because you belong to a certain minority.
It does not mean that the society needs to help you, because you may be somehow disadvantaged or handicapped.

Asked and answered. You first stated your "nasty meanings" and then asked what they are.

It is the same attitude as expressed in the OP title question. "Too Much 'Equality'?" implies that the problem with society is that people are treated equally. This leads one to the conclusion that the OP (and you and others like you) prefer a world that is unequal, where you have privileges above others.

I'm for equal opportunity, but I don't believe in equal results. And I don't believe that we're all of equal value - it's obvious to me that some people will get paid more for what they know or do, and some people less. That automatically makes some people of lesser intrinsic value.

Some people are uneducated and want an education - other uneducated people fervently wish to stay that way - I can't force them to become educated.

You can't force people to succeed, either.

The world is by nature, unequal, and some will always have privileges above others - sometimes this will be due to inequities, but most often due to stupidity.

I can't stop people from murdering each other (while other ethnicities are really calming down about that sort of thing), or getting addicted to drugs more often, or getting HIV more often - the government has rehab programs and medical programs - even advertisements - and there's one group of people who are consistently (and in contravention of common sense and our best wishes) fucking themselves to death.

Take teaching for example rather than an engineer working for a mining company. Now some woman just like some men choose to go into this profession and are paid less, now if a greater number of wome are in teaching and a greater number are men in the mining industry where they are paid more not because they are men like some people like to claim but because they are working in higher paying jobs.

Let us also run with the teaching example, both genders are paid the same provided everything else is the same such as same number of years and same position. If we look at engineers working for a mining company they are not paid the same rates, why? Because they recieve pay rises based on performance. Now if a man works harder and provides greater value to shareholders than a women then he is rightly paid more not because he is a man but because he met his objectives better than the women. Now some people use this example as inequality of wages in regards to gender, when that is not the reason at all.

You didn't really answer my question, you just gave me a single example. So again: What jobs are these, why are they paid less, and why do women "choose" to work in lower paying jobs?

I'm for equal opportunity, but I don't believe in equal results.
I do not believe in equal results because not all people have equal talents or abiltiies and not all people will put in equal effort to every endeavor. But I do not believe that has anything to do with race, sex, ethnicity, or economic class. If inequality is traced to such things as race, sex, ethnicity, or economic class, then I think we have a problem.

And I don't believe that we're all of equal value - it's obvious to me that some people will get paid more for what they know or do, and some people less. That automatically makes some people of lesser intrinsic value.
It's hard for me to respond to this without getting snarky in a way that is about me, not you, so please keep that in mind.

Seriously, the notion that human beings have an "intrinsic value" just bothers me on a very deep level. It pushes a button way down deep inside me.

First of all, I do not believe that there is any "intrinsic value" to any human being. No one is indispensible to civilization. And for the vast majority of us, when we die, who will really miss us? How many lives will be affected by the lack of us and our work? Realistically, not many at all. Even "the best and the brightest" are merely the few selected for the moment out of millions of humans not fundamentally different from them, and when one set dies, the next is there to take their place and carry on what they were doing, and society will not even pause to notice the change. So what is the "intrinsic value" of any person, if they are noticed by so few and can be replaced so readily?

Second -- and this is where my genetic predisposition to snarkiness kicks in; really, it runs in the family and there's nothing I can do about it -- the mere fact that you (not you personally but any person other than me) is saying that some people are of greater value than others because of what they can do causes me to ask (reflexively), "Just who do you think you are to judge the relative values of anything? Just what is it that makes you think you have the capacity to understand what is of value and what is not? What makes you think that the standards you apply to things are worth crap to anyone else?"

Perhaps you think a scientist is worth more than a garbage-man, but the residents of Naples today might disagree with you. Go live in that city where nobody has removed the garbage for a year and see who you think the world needs more. My point is that there is no job that is worth more to society than any other job, because every job fills a need, and those needs are of equal value to the people who have them. We need scientists to develop new technologies and medicines and whatnot. We also need garbage-men to keep our streets from becoming poisonous cesspits and our drinking water from getting contaminated. We need shop clerks to help move our merchandise around. We need cooks and farmers and construction laborers and fishermen and truck drivers, etc., just as much as we need doctors and lawyers and politicians and academics and cops and firemen, etc.

Disparity in pay among various professions/trades is fair when it is based on the burden of doing the job (how much training it needs, how many hours it demands, how dangerous it is, etc.) and/or on the desire of society to have it (such as how much artists, designers, consultants, or experts can charge for their services). It is unfair when it is based on an assumption that the low-profile jobs that get carried out behind the scenes are not important to society, as if they are not the machinery that keeps society running. Like I said, go to Naples and find out just how vital -- and valuable -- such jobs and the people who do them are.

For this reason, I do not accept that some people are of greater "intrinsic value" just because they are a little smarter and do complicated work than someone who might not be as smart but is willing to do the simple, hard labor that makes my life better and easier. That is why I will never say that a scientist is of greater value to me than a garbage-man.

Finally -- and this is the really snarky part -- I enjoy the way people who argue that some people are inherently better than others, never seem to think that there are bigger egos in the world than theirs. They never seem to realize that, while they are so carefully parsing out the relative values of other people, some of those other people are watching and laughing at the spectacle, because to them, watching most people try to judge the value of human beings is like watching a cat play the piano. You can calculate all you like, but to me, you'll never be any better than the person you consider your inferior, and listening to you talk about superiority and inferiority is hilariously funny.

Some people are uneducated and want an education - other uneducated people fervently wish to stay that way - I can't force them to become educated.

You can't force people to succeed, either.
Exactly so. George W. Bush is a prime example -- grossly ignorant and a failure at everything he does, yet he gets carried through life by others and gets paid good money to let them do it. I often wonder why.

The world is by nature, unequal, and some will always have privileges above others - sometimes this will be due to inequities, but most often due to stupidity.
Whose stupidity, though?

I can't stop people from murdering each other (while other ethnicities are really calming down about that sort of thing),
You are your own ethnicity?

or getting addicted to drugs more often, or getting HIV more often - the government has rehab programs and medical programs - even advertisements - and there's one group of people who are consistently (and in contravention of common sense and our best wishes) fucking themselves to death.
Now, here we see more of those "nasty meanings" coming to the surface. In the end, you finally reveal the social prejudices that are behind your notions of "intrinsic value" and why equality is impossible. It is impossible because you refuse to cooperate with it, preferring to keep groups separate so you can place yourself above them and talk shit about them. The one feature that is shared by all those who argue against ideas of equality is that they do not see themselves as being at the bottom of the heap -- which is really funny, in a way, because from my perspective that's exactly where you are. A cat pawing at a piano.

Now, here we see more of those "nasty meanings" coming to the surface. In the end, you finally reveal the social prejudices that are behind your notions of "intrinsic value" and why equality is impossible. It is impossible because you refuse to cooperate with it, preferring to keep groups separate so you can place yourself above them and talk shit about them. The one feature that is shared by all those who argue against ideas of equality is that they do not see themselves as being at the bottom of the heap -- which is really funny, in a way, because from my perspective that's exactly where you are. A cat pawing at a piano.

I think you're misperceiving my meaning.

I'm saying that we have equal opportunity this and that, and programs that the government is using to try to help certain groups far more than others by spending money, etc.

And instead of focusing on taking advantage of that offer, they're continuing to fuck themselves to death. Shooting each other far out of proportion to their numbers, getting HIV, hepatitis, etc. - far out of proportion. Being incarcerated far out of proportion.

Even when compared to urban poor of any other ethnicity...

You would think that it's a conscious act of self-destruction - one that they refuse to acknowledge.

It's easier to blame "whitey" or "teh j00z".

I think you're misperceiving my meaning.

I'm saying that we have equal opportunity this and that, and programs that the government is using to try to help certain groups far more than others by spending money, etc.

And instead of focusing on taking advantage of that offer, they're continuing to fuck themselves to death. Shooting each other far out of proportion to their numbers, getting HIV, hepatitis, etc. - far out of proportion. Being incarcerated far out of proportion.

Even when compared to urban poor of any other ethnicity...

You would think that it's a conscious act of self-destruction - one that they refuse to acknowledge.

It's easier to blame "whitey" or "teh j00z".
No, that is exactly what I thought you meant.

No, that is exactly what I thought you meant.

Social equality is not impossible because I am not cooperating - it's impossible because they're too busy killing each other.

Social equality is not impossible because I am not cooperating - it's impossible because they're too busy killing each other.

And how are you helping to stop them?

And how are you helping to stop them?

Our government has been trying for decades with billions thrown at the problem.

A lot of problems have external causes - but some internal causes can prolong or exacerbate a problem.

You can't really have a government come down and say, "this is the way to live!"

I'm for equal opportunity, but I don't believe in equal results.

unless you radically decouple your unequal results from having a massive distorting impact on future generations, then you don't really believe in equal opportunity either.

it's obvious to me that some people will get paid more for what they know or do, and some people less. That automatically makes some people of lesser intrinsic value.

that's not what that word means.

I think that people are only just starting to gain equal rights. Look at gay marriages for instance. Today Gay marriages are legalised in California, only the second state in the U.S.A. to do this.

I do not believe...... snip..... in a way, because from my perspective that's exactly where you are. A cat pawing at a piano.
Anybody can be a bin man; if the bin wan were to die or quit his job then anybody could take his job, regardless of intelligence and social background. However not everybody could be a doctor or scientist, you have to be intelligent to do these jobs. Now both jobs are important, however because there are less people capable of doing the second job, the people who can do it are more important. Foe example, in an army both private soldiers and officers are important but if an officer is killed there are less people who can take his place, so he is a more valuable person. Whereas if the private soldier dies many people are there to replace him so he is less important. This is a purely practical and common sense view, and that is what matters. Now your example of is a case of the bin men going on strike, so they are choosing not to work, all of them. The ordinary people of Naples could move the rubbish themselves, they chose not to however nothing is stopping them. Whereas if all the doctors went on strike then nobody else could take there place even if they did want to. So doctors are more valuable, even though both jobs are important.

Anybody can be a bin man; if the bin wan were to die or quit his job then anybody could take his job, regardless of intelligence and social background. However not everybody could be a doctor or scientist, you have to be intelligent to do these jobs. Now both jobs are important, however because there are less people capable of doing the second job, the people who can do it are more important. Foe example, in an army both private soldiers and officers are important but if an officer is killed there are less people who can take his place, so he is a more valuable person. Whereas if the private soldier dies many people are there to replace him so he is less important. This is a purely practical and common sense view, and that is what matters. Now your example of is a case of the bin men going on strike, so they are choosing not to work, all of them. The ordinary people of Naples could move the rubbish themselves, they chose not to however nothing is stopping them. Whereas if all the doctors went on strike then nobody else could take there place even if they did want to. So doctors are more valuable, even though both jobs are important.

And in the end everyone dies from plague contracted from a dirty telephone.

[/Adams]

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

-The Nomadic Peoples Of KnightWish

Quotas do not happen. How do you know the university denied you because of your skin color ? Did they send you a letter. Did you ever think that maybe you lost out on other factors? class rank standardized test ? school clubs? athletics ? or maybe the interview ?

If you really feel being white hurts you here is a secret. state that your African American, or Hispanic or what ever you want. Under US law you may declare yourself any ethnicity you so choose.

Heh, not with people like you above them on the social ladder, stomping on their fingers every time they reach up a rung, because you don't want to share the privileges you think belong to you. (Sorry, this just brought back so many posts of yours I've read in so many threads.)

So, from "people like you" I can infer that you believe the better part of the middle classes in any occidental country to jealously guard their "priveliges" against those who seek a part of them?

I disagree. I have no objection to people attaining whatever they have earnt from their own endeavours, irrespective of their economic or cultural background. I see no reason, however, to give certain groups a peculiar, unwarranted advantage simply because they are considered deprived. Their depirvation should be an incentive to work harder, and nothing more.

Quotas do not happen. How do you know the university denied you because of your skin color ? Did they send you a letter. Did you ever think that maybe you lost out on other factors? class rank standardized test ? school clubs? athletics ? or maybe the interview ?

If you really feel being white hurts you here is a secret. state that your African American, or Hispanic or what ever you want. Under US law you may declare yourself any ethnicity you so choose.

There have been statements in the past by the various university admissions deans in California state universities that if they went merely by test scores and academic ability, only Asians would be in the engineering schools, and a handful of whites, and zero African-Americans.

They have to take something else into account that is non-academic in order to get the numbers of other people higher. This means that they'll have to place some value on "I was raised a poor black child" or "I lived in the inner city" and by definition devalue the test scores and academic record - in other words, "dumbing down" the academic standard.

It's not a quota, but it strikes me as stupid. I would think you want the incoming student with the highest odds of understanding the material and succeeding in school.

You can't dumb it down too far - if you do, the normal weeding out occurs (students fail out of school especially in the first year - if you have too many with lower test scores coming in, you'll get a larger number of washouts).

Of course, since people will complain that "not as many of our group" graduate (mind you, not an official quota, but using equal outcome as a measurement is valid in lawsuits), you'll have to dumb down the classes as well.

So, from "people like you" I can infer that you believe the better part of the middle classes in any occidental country to jealously guard their "priveliges" against those who seek a part of them?

Pretty much yes, that's largely the definition of "class" in the first place.

Pretty much yes, that's largely the definition of "class" in the first place.

And? Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be, and frankly, I really couldn't care less.

People should work for what they recieve, not recieve it simply because they're deemed needy and underpriveliged.

There have been statements in the past by the various university admissions deans in California state universities that if they went merely by test scores and academic ability, only Asians would be in the engineering schools, and a handful of whites, and zero African-Americans.

Silly Hotwife. Correlation =/= causation. Also, source.

Silly Hotwife. Correlation =/= causation. Also, source.

We've been over this topic at least 10 times in the past few years.

And it's not a quota, but I would rather have fully qualified people in a school - not people whose experience was "I war <fill in injustice here>"

There's a reason that I have great people in a great programming shop.

The test is very hard. It doesn't care what color you are.

Oddly, my staff is almost entirely Asian, with a few white people in there.

Not a black person to be seen. Many have taken the test - and failed - graduates of universities where the standards were obviously lowered.

The test is the only criteria I use.

There have been statements in the past by the various university admissions deans in California state universities that if they went merely by test scores and academic ability, only Asians would be in the engineering schools, and a handful of whites, and zero African-Americans.

There are more then test scores and academics in school admissions.
the two major tactics I see universities do is targeted recruitment, and to conduct interviews and give points for things like assertiveness, and motivation.
They have to take something else into account that is non-academic in order to get the numbers of other people higher. This means that they'll have to place some value on "I was raised a poor black child" or "I lived in the inner city" and by definition devalue the test scores and academic record - in other words, "dumbing down" the academic standard.

It's not a quota, but it strikes me as stupid. I would think you want the incoming student with the highest odds of understanding the material and succeeding in school.

schools also wish to make a diverse learning environment. It is important for future success that students learn how to deal with and work together with people of all ethnic and cultural back grounds

You can't dumb it down too far - if you do, the normal weeding out occurs (students fail out of school especially in the first year - if you have too many with lower test scores coming in, you'll get a larger number of washouts).

Bush, Legacy, admission. Universities already dumb these things down for the children of rich white parents on the grounds that they or their grand parents went to the school.

Of course, since people will complain that "not as many of our group" graduate (mind you, not an official quota, but using equal outcome as a measurement is valid in lawsuits), you'll have to dumb down the classes as well.

As I said before if your concerned it affects you simply state your a minority group by law they are required to act accordingly.

Organically. They can work their way up the social and economic scale like anybody else, not handed irresponsible, artificial and unwarranted advantages.

Let's deal with this scale in terms of numbers.

Let's say that you start at number 5 on the scale and somebody else starts at number 2. If you both are born with the same natural talents and make the same quality of decisions, you will be much better off. They can't work their way up this scale "like anybody else", they have to work their way up this scale the only way they can: through luck or being exceptional. And if they're one of the vast majority who aren't really lucky or really brilliant, maybe their only shot at "success" is crime. All the while, John Middle Class gets by just fine being mediocre.

So, from "people like you" I can infer that you believe the better part of the middle classes in any occidental country to jealously guard their "priveliges" against those who seek a part of them?

I disagree. I have no objection to people attaining whatever they have earnt from their own endeavours, irrespective of their economic or cultural background. I see no reason, however, to give certain groups a peculiar, unwarranted advantage simply because they are considered deprived. Their depirvation should be an incentive to work harder, and nothing more.

But the middle classes don't attain based solely on "their own endeavours", they often rely on previous endeavours to give them an advantageous starting point.

We've been over this topic at least 10 times in the past few years.

And you've yet to give a source. Funny, that.

And instead of focusing on taking advantage of that offer, they're continuing to fuck themselves to death. Shooting each other far out of proportion to their numbers, getting HIV, hepatitis, etc. - far out of proportion. Being incarcerated far out of proportion.

Even when compared to urban poor of any other ethnicity...

You would think that it's a conscious act of self-destruction - one that they refuse to acknowledge.

Wow. This sounds exactly like the speech Edward Norton makes at the dinner table in American History X.

What you, and so many other people who want to wash their hands of any responsibility to the citizens of this country, so fervently ignore are the reasons behind these statistics and events. You want only to point to incarceration rates and say, "See? They're all criminals." You don't want to look at the unequal prison sentences that different ethnicities receive, or the number of minorities that see jail time compared to the number of whites that go to rehab on the government dollar. And you certainly don't want to admit that there's something a little fucked up about expecting a level playing field a whole forty years after the civil rights act.

No, you just want to say "If black people want to kill each other, that's what they deserve." Only you're too much of a coward to say it's black people you're talking about.

We've been over this topic at least 10 times in the past few years.

And it's not a quota, but I would rather have fully qualified people in a school - not people whose experience was "I war <fill in injustice here>"

There's a reason that I have great people in a great programming shop.

The test is very hard. It doesn't care what color you are.

Oddly, my staff is almost entirely Asian, with a few white people in there.

Not a black person to be seen. Many have taken the test - and failed - graduates of universities where the standards were obviously lowered.

The test is the only criteria I use.

Did you even read what I posted?

Wow. This sounds exactly like the speech Edward Norton makes at the dinner table in American History X.

What you, and so many other people who want to wash their hands of any responsibility to the citizens of this country, so fervently ignore are the reasons behind these statistics and events. You want only to point to incarceration rates and say, "See? They're all criminals." You don't want to look at the unequal prison sentences that different ethnicities receive, or the number of minorities that see jail time compared to the number of whites that go to rehab on the government dollar. And you certainly don't want to admit that there's something a little fucked up about expecting a level playing field a whole forty years after the civil rights act.

No, you just want to say "If black people want to kill each other, that's what they deserve." Only you're too much of a coward to say it's black people you're talking about.

It's a classic case of "blaming the victim". Why a group would choose to be poor, to be victims of crime, to be undereducated and discriminated against isn't ever really explained. What is said is that the guy who chooses between going from a rich kid expected to become a rich adult to being a rich adult and going from a rich kid expected to become a rich adult to a poor drug addict has made better decisions than the poor kid who isn't expected to succeed who becomes a poor drug addict.

Social equality is not impossible because I am not cooperating - it's impossible because they're too busy killing each other.
It's impossible because you cling to your bigoted assumptions about what people do and why. Those assumptions, I notice, conveniently place you above them, value-wise.

It is the same attitude as expressed in the OP title question. "Too Much 'Equality'?" implies that the problem with society is that people are treated equally. This leads one to the conclusion that the OP (and you and others like you) prefer a world that is unequal, where you have privileges above others.

I thought it was implying that there was to much policy being enacted in the name of equality, which doesn't always mean it is making things more equal.

Anybody can be a bin man; if the bin wan were to die or quit his job then anybody could take his job, regardless of intelligence and social background. However not everybody could be a doctor or scientist, you have to be intelligent to do these jobs. Now both jobs are important, however because there are less people capable of doing the second job, the people who can do it are more important. Foe example, in an army both private soldiers and officers are important but if an officer is killed there are less people who can take his place, so he is a more valuable person. Whereas if the private soldier dies many people are there to replace him so he is less important. This is a purely practical and common sense view, and that is what matters. Now your example of is a case of the bin men going on strike, so they are choosing not to work, all of them. The ordinary people of Naples could move the rubbish themselves, they chose not to however nothing is stopping them. Whereas if all the doctors went on strike then nobody else could take there place even if they did want to. So doctors are more valuable, even though both jobs are important.
Not true. Doctors and lawyers are a dime a dozen, and many of them are complete idiots. Go work for some, if you don't believe me. I have. To get their licenses, basically all they have to do is pass some tests and wait a while. Merely having a license to practice medicine or being admitted to a bar to practice law does not mean you will be any good at it. That right there is the danger of assuming that if a person is a doctor or lawyer, then they must be smart and skilled and valuable. Also, not taking the tests, or not having the opportunity to take them, does not mean you couldn't pass them and/or couldn't do the job once you got it. So there is no reason to assume that a garbage-man is a garbage-man because he doesn't have what it takes to be a doctor or a lawyer. As a matter of fact, I've known a few lawyers who worked as garbage-men and similar labor-type jobs while they were paying for their schooling in the "more valuable" profession. Assuming that what a person does for a living is an indicator of their abilities and, thus, their value to society is an extremely short-sighted way to grope through life.

As for your military example, officers get killed in combat all the time, and when they do, the next person down the chain of command steps in until either they're all dead or they get to a place where a new officer can be assigned to them. Sometimes, the lower-ranked person will even be promoted to take the dead officer's place. The dead officer is hardly missed -- no more than any enlisted soldier. War does not allow time for such bosh. And assuming that officers who give orders are more valuable than soldiers who actually do the killing and dying is what leads to horrors like World War I.

And as for Naples, first off, the problem is not just a strike but, rather, political corruption in regard to landfills and a failure to appropriately secure toxic waste, which led to other countries/municipalities refusing to accept the city's trash anymore. And as for your assertion that the citizens could move the garbage themselves -- how would they do that? Where would they bring it to? We're talking about all the city's garbage, not just their kitchen sweepings. We're talking about toxic waste, industrial waste, commercial waste, in the volume of an entire city. You know, there is a reason why there are whole companies that specialize in trash removal. It's because people just carting their household trash to a dump on their own doesn't cover the need. It's a need, you see, not a convenience. When people say stuff like, well, the people could move the garbage themselves if they wanted to, it just shows me that the speaker has no idea what is involved in running a city, or the commercial, financial and political complexities involved in moving things like garbage out and water in. That kind of practical ignorance is another thing that renders arguments about the relative value of people in society utterly meaningless.

So, from "people like you" I can infer that you believe the better part of the middle classes in any occidental country to jealously guard their "priveliges" against those who seek a part of them?
No, such an inference would be incorrect because, as far as I know, you do not represent the majority of the middle class.

I disagree. I have no objection to people attaining whatever they have earnt from their own endeavours, irrespective of their economic or cultural background. I see no reason, however, to give certain groups a peculiar, unwarranted advantage simply because they are considered deprived. Their depirvation should be an incentive to work harder, and nothing more.
Uh-huh. "Should be," of course, assumes that it isn't, which is an unfounded assumption. Also, the context of your statement suggests the assumption that there are no other obstacles, that there is no such thing as discrimination. Interesting. I wonder then about all the obstacles faced by not-deprived people -- by all the middle-class people of color, all the middle-class women, all the middle-class gays, etc, who find themselves passed over for jobs or paid less than white male hetero co-workers, or put under extra scrutiny by prospective landlords, etc. Yeah, all those poor people just need to get their asses in gear, because once they get past the deprivation hurdle it's clear sailing from there, in a world where everyone gets fair reward for fair effort. Yeah, right.

You didn't really answer my question, you just gave me a single example. So again: What jobs are these, why are they paid less, and why do women "choose" to work in lower paying jobs?

Well I gave you a job where payment is lower, do you want me to list every single job where the average wage in that industry is below the average wage in the economy. To answer the question as to why they a lower paid jobs would depend on the particular job we are talking about, and could be due to government paying low PS wages, intense competition or even small demand, the last two would take a considerable amount of economic explanation which I will not go into, if you wish to understand I suggest you grab hold of a couple of economic textbooks. As to why they choose, you would have to ask them that, they certainly aren't forced into those jobs nor are they stopped from working in higher paying jobs or industries as you might like to claim. Here is another example for you; a trade school recently took in 50 new apprentices at the start of this year, how many were female? None why? Because only one female applied for these positions she did not get the job because she is a women as some people may like to claim but because she failed the drug test. The head of the school made mention of this and said that while they were an equal opportunity employer (required by law) they did not have the interest from females applying for these positions, which explains why out of the 450 apprentices they have under their care only 3 are female, and they had to go through the same testing procedure as everyone else. Some people would like to say that females should automatically get the job because there is a low number of females in the industry, now I ask you is that equality? Some people say yes however, giving someone a job because of their gender is discrimination, despite the fact that some feminists claim that they should be given the job to make the workforce more equal.

I thought it was implying that there was to much policy being enacted in the name of equality, which doesn't always mean it is making things more equal.
No. Read the OP again. He is not bitching about policies, he is bitching about people. He is not blaming bad policies, he is blaming the concept of equality itself. And he is complaining that he is being treated as less equal not by poorly implemented policies but by people who are trying to exercise privileges over him.

Well I gave you a job where payment is lower, do you want me to list every single job where the average wage in that industry is below the average wage. To answer the question as to why they a lower paid jobs would depend on the particular job we are talking about, <snip>

BE, what part of "being paid less for the same work" do you not understand?

The question of equal pay for women is not a matter of paying teachers the same as corporate managers. It is a matter of paying female teachers the same as male teachers. When equal-pay advocates complain that women get paid $.75 for every $1.00 a man gets paid, they mean for the same job, at the same level, with the same seniority. It has nothing to do with comparing different jobs to each other.

And when Gravlen asked you to explain why you think women "choose" lower waged jobs over higher waged jobs, he was trying to hint to you that they don't "choose" them. They are forced into those jobs because they are more often blocked from employment in better paying jobs by discriminatory hiring practices.

BE, what part of "being paid less for the same work" do you not understand?

The question of equal pay for women is not a matter of paying teachers the same as corporate managers. It is a matter of paying female teachers the same as male teachers. When equal-pay advocates complain that women get paid $.75 for every $1.00 a man gets paid, they mean for the same job, at the same level, with the same seniority. It has nothing to do with comparing different jobs to each other.

And when Gravlen asked you to explain why you think women "choose" lower waged jobs over higher waged jobs, he was trying to hint to you that they don't "choose" them. They are forced into those jobs because they are more often blocked from employment in better paying jobs by discriminatory hiring practices.

And what part of being paid the same for not meeting performance objectives as well do people not understand. I knew what he was trying to hint, but he is wrong in that assumption and I gave an example.

Foe example, in an army both private soldiers and officers are important but if an officer is killed there are less people who can take his place, so he is a more valuable person. Whereas if the private soldier dies many people are there to replace him so he is less important
Only in relation to the army.

If you want to argue that an individual's job is the sole defining feature of their life, and that this designates how 'important' that person is, then I'd politely suggest you have an extremely blinkered view of human society and human beings in general.

And what part of being paid the same for not meeting performance objectives as well do people not understand. I knew what he was trying to hint, but he is wrong in that assumption and I gave an example.
I know that. I read it. That's how I also know that your example was not on point. (EDIT: I mean not on point to Gravlen's question, though I suppose it is supportive of your own position, if you deny that there is such a thing as gender discrimination in hiring practices so that if any company makes a habit of not hiring women it must be because they are unqualified or incompetent, not because the company is discriminating in favor of men.)

Nobody is saying that a person who fails at a job should get the same pay as one who is good at it -- or even that they should get hired at all, or be kept on if they did get hired.

But I am asking you to look at professions where both men and women get hired, and my question to you is this: Do you deny or agree that women often get paid less than men in the same jobs, even if they perform the job to the same level of competency?

If you deny it, then how do you account for wage statistics research that indicates that this does happen?

If you agree, do you think it is fair or unfair to pay women less than men even if they do the same job equally well?

I know that. I read it. That's how I also know that your example was not on point. (EDIT: I mean not on point to Gravlen's question, though I suppose it is supportive of your own position, if you deny that there is such a thing as gender discrimination in hiring practices so that if any company makes a habit of not hiring women it must be because they are unqualified or incompetent, not because the company is discriminating in favor of men.)

But it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate in favour of women. I have been told by a Human resources manager from a Top 50 Australian company that when they are hiring graduates they ensure that they have a certain proportion of women so they do not get accused of being discriminatory, even though this practice is in itself discriminatory. What I am saying is that it shouldn't hire women if they are incompetent or unqualified just like they shouldn't hire a male applicant for the same reasons, but perhaps you would prefer that the unqualified women is hired instead of the qualified man because not hiring the woman proves that the company has discriminatory hiring practices and so should hire the women because that is equality. Or perhaps you would prefer that if she is qualified then she is automatically hired because she is a women. Now you may not think that but plenty of people either argue that is how it should be or at least imply it.

Nobody is saying that a person who fails at a job should get the same pay as one who is good at it -- or even that they should get hired at all, or be kept on if they did get hired.

But I am asking you to look at professions where both men and women get hired, and my question to you is this: Do you deny or agree that women often get paid less than men in the same jobs, even if they perform the job to the same level of competency?

If you deny it, then how do you account for wage statistics research that indicates that this does happen?

If you agree, do you think it is fair or unfair to pay women less than men even if they do the same job equally well?

I neither deny it nor agree with it, however, the wage statistics has bias in it because this is what it set out to achieve do. No I do not think that it is fair that women are paid less then men if they do the same job equally well they should be paid the same provided that everything apart from gender is the same.

I sometimes wonder when you hear feminists talk about how there is not enough women in power or in high positions like they should be automatically placed there because they are a women and no men shouldn't be automatically placed there because they are men. People should have to work in order to advance.

women get paid less since they raise a child. Try fairly factoring that into an equation. But the real question is wether this is a bad thing or not. If there is a stay at home Mum and the Dad works full time the female drags the whole wage down. She may have worked before and stopped. If this is a personal life choice why should you criticize it?

However the feminist movement believes this is an outrage. Its not about choice. Its about equality at any cost

women get paid less since they raise a child. Try fairly factoring that into an equation. But the real question is wether this is a bad thing or not. If there is a stay at home Mum and the Dad works full time the female drags the whole wage down. She may have worked before and stopped. If this is a personal life choice why should you criticize it?

However the feminist movement believes this is an outrage. Its not about choice. Its about equality at any cost


Of course, it all makes sense now. All women want babies which they produce against the will of their menfolk, dragging down their wages, and to the detriment of society which really would get on much better without future generations. I heard that some women don't actually have children, and many that do still go to work, but its just as fair to penalise them too because they probably don't work hard anyway due to thinking about babies all the time.

:rolleyes:

This is something that's been bugin' me. 'Minorities' have to many special privalages. An African-American can call me everything but human, but if I call them 'Black', it's being rascist. Lots of Colleges and Companies have qoutas of minorities that they are required to fill. When I went to college, I got refused entry to 2 seperate Universities, because they were required to fill the spot with a minority student who had half the GPA. If we're all supposed to be equal, regardless of race, how come these minorities get so many special privalages that Whites don't? :mad:

I would like your opinions, not flames or curses or calling me rascist, please. Thanx.:)

-The Nomadic Peoples Of KnightWish

You lost all credibility when you said "whites."

It is the right of a female to reproduce if she wishes. A child would understand that biologically a man is unable. But have you acutally read any statistics where they only compare males to females who have both worked full time since leaving school?

I havn't. This is a VERY important statistical factor. During the starting years of a career you are more likely to be fast tracked for promotion. Yet you seem more willing to say its the males fault that the woman chooses to give birth. The last time I checked all the option upon child birth where in the hand of the female including custody battles.

I argue that we cant even fairly compare the difference between female and male sallaries. What I do remember thoe is some statistics that claimed during years 11 and 12 (Before birth) that females where more likely to be employed and therefor earn more.

Now I do believe that more males get employed later the statistics prove it but this would have been the during a time where more and more females decide to have a child. It is the womans choice. Yet you seem to think that the choice by the woman show inequality.

If a company can see the financial value in promotion they will do so regardless. Its not about gender, race or religion it is about how much money you can earn them. Because in the end all corporations dont bow down to god they bow down to the almighty dollar.

And who said the male cant stay home after child birth when the female goes to work. It just isnt chosen nearly as often for whatever reasons. I know BREAST FEEDING.

I've got popcorn. Who wants popcorn?

I've got popcorn. Who wants popcorn?

Toffee, buttter or salt?

Another middle class white heterosexual male complaining about how all them Others are too durn equal these days?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Another middle class white heterosexual male complaining about how all them Others are too durn equal these days?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

I see your shock and raise you an outrage.

But it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate in favour of women. I have been told by a Human resources manager from a Top 50 Australian company that when they are hiring graduates they ensure that they have a certain proportion of women so they do not get accused of being discriminatory, even though this practice is in itself discriminatory. What I am saying is that it shouldn't hire women if they are incompetent or unqualified just like they shouldn't hire a male applicant for the same reasons, but perhaps you would prefer that the unqualified women is hired instead of the qualified man because not hiring the woman proves that the company has discriminatory hiring practices and so should hire the women because that is equality. Or perhaps you would prefer that if she is qualified then she is automatically hired because she is a women. Now you may not think that but plenty of people either argue that is how it should be or at least imply it.



I neither deny it nor agree with it, however, the wage statistics has bias in it because this is what it set out to achieve do. No I do not think that it is fair that women are paid less then men if they do the same job equally well they should be paid the same provided that everything apart from gender is the same.

I sometimes wonder when you hear feminists talk about how there is not enough women in power or in high positions like they should be automatically placed there because they are a women and no men shouldn't be automatically placed there because they are men. People should have to work in order to advance.
Interesting. Someone asks you the price of oranges and you tell them all about apples instead. And when they ask you point-blank to address the oranges question, you flat-out refuse and start jabbering about some vague suspicions you have about something entirely unrelated. Makes me think you really don't know anything about oranges but don't want to admit that you've been arguing about something you don't understand. Either that, or for some reason, you're just shy about coming right out and saying you think women don't deserve equal pay for equal work.

It is the right of a female to reproduce if she wishes. A child would understand that biologically a man is unable. But have you acutally read any statistics where they only compare males to females who have both worked full time since leaving school?

I havn't. This is a VERY important statistical factor. During the starting years of a career you are more likely to be fast tracked for promotion. Yet you seem more willing to say its the males fault that the woman chooses to give birth. The last time I checked all the option upon child birth where in the hand of the female including custody battles.

I argue that we cant even fairly compare the difference between female and male sallaries. What I do remember thoe is some statistics that claimed during years 11 and 12 (Before birth) that females where more likely to be employed and therefor earn more.

Now I do believe that more males get employed later the statistics prove it but this would have been the during a time where more and more females decide to have a child. It is the womans choice. Yet you seem to think that the choice by the woman show inequality.

If a company can see the financial value in promotion they will do so regardless. Its not about gender, race or religion it is about how much money you can earn them. Because in the end all corporations dont bow down to god they bow down to the almighty dollar.

And who said the male cant stay home after child birth when the female goes to work. It just isnt chosen nearly as often for whatever reasons. I know BREAST FEEDING.
I am so tired of this crap.

Here are some numbers for us all to play with:
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1007870

Salary data are NOT based on how many hours per week/year a given individual works but on averages of an hourly rate per a 40-45-hour week for a whole year. That is, it assumes that people are working full time at the job. So your claim that statistics take maternity leaves into account in calculating average women's wages is nonsense. Why? Because not all women take maternity leave.

And even if it did happen, which it doesn't, it would make your statistics worthless but would bolster my assertion that women are discriminated against, because men can take family leave for the birth of a child, too, if they want, yet according to you, that isn't factored into their salary averages. So, that would mean that all women are paid less because some women take time off to have babies, but no men are paid less even though some men do take off to have babies.

Oh, and by the way, a lot of American women who have both jobs and babies, express their milk at work (hopefully in the restroom), to store for later feedings. Let me tell you, it's so much fun in some offices, where the women's restroom more closely resembles a dairy barn at milking time. So, no, women do not stay home to breastfeed their babies.

well, i may be a bit new here, but i see where each of you is coming from.... and its true that both minorities and whites are discriminated against (then again, who isnt?) and i believe that everyones rights should be completely, irrevocably, undisputedly equal. and to all you supremacist, fascist bastards out there who say otherwise.... good luck getting out of hell guys. we were all created equally. maybe a bit uniquely, but still equally.

That is, it assumes that people are working full time at the job.

Well I am saying that more females dont work full time at a job then males. They have some time off during pregnancy and shorten their hours due to a child. You have been unable to provide any statistics that take this into account. To accurately judge disrcimination like must be compared with like. Equal hours over a period of time by different groups must be established. And more then these hours the skill must be established.

The female has a choice to give birth or not. Prehaps we should value children more but that is another matter entirely. The thing is the female chooses to raise a child

Some women go to work with a babie. I dont deny that. But how long off did they spend for maternity leave? Did they miss any training as a result? Are they willing to work such long hours now they have a child? There are infact more women going to university then men at the moment. Females are more willing to study and learn earlier on then males.

The thing is a child effects the lifestyle and therefor carreer. Why is a personal choice made by one individual a sign they are being discriminated against? I would have thought of that as freedom or liberty not oppression.

In the end a boss dosnt care what the employee is they care if the employee can earn them money.

You lost all credibility when you said "whites."

It took that long?

*snip*

You obviously missed the last sentence of my second to last paragraph. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore my posts because you have realized what I am saying is true.

You have been unable to provide any statistics that take this into account.

:rolleyes:

You're right, people think that if you dont give minorities privileges, you're rascist! I thought you wanted equality, not blacks being superior to whites? neither of us are superior or deserve privileges like that! just because their a minority, their better than us? quotas! just because a student is black doesnt mean they're a better student than you! and you MUST at least have basic intelligence for bringing this up? colleges should be able to accept who they want, but the government is forcing people to have to accept certain AMOUNTS of minorities, even if it means taking the opportunity away from students who ARENT a minority, and are better students and DESERVE the place! just because your black, doesnt mean that you are automatically smart! people are STILL judging people by the color of their skin, even if it IS for the better! And for whites, it ISN'T! It doesnt matter, there are black people who have been bad! EQUALITY and RASCISM go hand in hand when it comes to whites! If you had a place in a bus that was reserved, and a black person wanted it, if you didnt give the seat to him, you would be a rascist! You HAVE to love everybody whos black and treat them BETTER than whites, or else you arent being morally correct, apparently. You should treat them EQUALLY, blacks and whites, not treat blacks or whites better! Sometimes, the people in America think that if you dont give a black person what they want, it HAS to be because they're black! it can't be because they made you mad, or because you knew the white person, if you give something to another person when a black person also wanted it, the ONLY POSSIBLE reason there is, is because you HATE the black person JUST BECAUSE HE'S BLACK! You dont need to LOVE People who are black better than whites just because their black, and you dont need to treat whites like crap and say they're inferior! thats not EQUALITY! Thats rascism against whites! Just because its not against blacks DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT THAT ITS RASCISM, BECAUSE YOU'RE TREATING BLACKS BETTER THAN WHITES, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK, AND BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE NOWADAYS, IF YOUR DONT LOVE BLACKS, YOU HATE THEM!


God, i Cant believe how STUPID people can be...:headbang:

God, i Cant believe how STUPID people can be

Yeah...me neither.....

Well I am saying that more females dont work full time at a job then males. They have some time off during pregnancy and shorten their hours due to a child. You have been unable to provide any statistics that take this into account. To accurately judge disrcimination like must be compared with like. Equal hours over a period of time by different groups must be established. And more then these hours the skill must be established.

The female has a choice to give birth or not. Prehaps we should value children more but that is another matter entirely. The thing is the female chooses to raise a child

Some women go to work with a babie. I dont deny that. But how long off did they spend for maternity leave? Did they miss any training as a result? Are they willing to work such long hours now they have a child? There are infact more women going to university then men at the moment. Females are more willing to study and learn earlier on then males.

The thing is a child effects the lifestyle and therefor carreer. Why is a personal choice made by one individual a sign they are being discriminated against? I would have thought of that as freedom or liberty not oppression.

In the end a boss dosnt care what the employee is they care if the employee can earn them money.


People should decide if they want to become pregnant, but if they are and didnt plan it, it doesnt mean that they should kill their baby! The right to kill isnt a right! if it will ruin your life to be pregnant, thats not the babies problem! you were stupid, you didnt use birth control, condoms etc., and YOU took that risk! You shouldn't take another persons life just because it will make yours easier! that child deserves a life! Even if you dont want to go through the trouble, you have to, because its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!:upyours:

Yeah...me neither.....

If it weren't so very long, and if I were inclined to put anything at all in my sig, that post in its entirety really would have been almost sigworthy, don't you think? :p

Well I am saying that more females dont work full time at a job then males. They have some time off during pregnancy and shorten their hours due to a child. You have been unable to provide any statistics that take this into account. To accurately judge disrcimination like must be compared with like. Equal hours over a period of time by different groups must be established. And more then these hours the skill must be established.

The female has a choice to give birth or not. Prehaps we should value children more but that is another matter entirely. The thing is the female chooses to raise a child

Some women go to work with a babie. I dont deny that. But how long off did they spend for maternity leave? Did they miss any training as a result? Are they willing to work such long hours now they have a child? There are infact more women going to university then men at the moment. Females are more willing to study and learn earlier on then males.

The thing is a child effects the lifestyle and therefor carreer. Why is a personal choice made by one individual a sign they are being discriminated against? I would have thought of that as freedom or liberty not oppression.

In the end a boss dosnt care what the employee is they care if the employee can earn them money.

For the love of christ, BABY. BEE AY BEE WHY. Why should ANYONE listen to you when you can't spell a FOUR LETTER WORD?

You're right, people think that if you dont give minorities privileges, you're rascist! I thought you wanted equality, not blacks being superior to whites? neither of us are superior or deserve privileges like that! just because their a minority, their better than us? quotas! just because a student is black doesnt mean they're a better student than you! and you MUST at least have basic intelligence for bringing this up? colleges should be able to accept who they want, but the government is forcing people to have to accept certain AMOUNTS of minorities, even if it means taking the opportunity away from students who ARENT a minority, and are better students and DESERVE the place! just because your black, doesnt mean that you are automatically smart! people are STILL judging people by the color of their skin, even if it IS for the better! And for whites, it ISN'T! It doesnt matter, there are black people who have been bad! EQUALITY and RASCISM go hand in hand when it comes to whites! If you had a place in a bus that was reserved, and a black person wanted it, if you didnt give the seat to him, you would be a rascist! You HAVE to love everybody whos black and treat them BETTER than whites, or else you arent being morally correct, apparently. You should treat them EQUALLY, blacks and whites, not treat blacks or whites better! Sometimes, the people in America think that if you dont give a black person what they want, it HAS to be because they're black! it can't be because they made you mad, or because you knew the white person, if you give something to another person when a black person also wanted it, the ONLY POSSIBLE reason there is, is because you HATE the black person JUST BECAUSE HE'S BLACK! You dont need to LOVE People who are black better than whites just because their black, and you dont need to treat whites like crap and say they're inferior! thats not EQUALITY! Thats rascism against whites! Just because its not against blacks DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT THAT ITS RASCISM, BECAUSE YOU'RE TREATING BLACKS BETTER THAN WHITES, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK, AND BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE NOWADAYS, IF YOUR DONT LOVE BLACKS, YOU HATE THEM!


God, i Cant believe how STUPID people can be...:headbang:

...okay, be honest, are you a puppet created to make the other racists looks less ridiculous?

You obviously missed the last sentence of my second to last paragraph. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore my posts because you have realized what I am saying is true.
You mean this sentence?

No I do not think that it is fair that women are paid less then men if they do the same job equally well they should be paid the same provided that everything apart from gender is the same.

Yeah, I did miss that one. I think my brain might have skipped over it on an automatic assumption that it was insincere in the midst of all your other sentences in which you went on and on about all the ways women are at fault for their workplace experiences. I guess I was thinking, after reading all your other posts, that, while you acknowledge that it would be unfair if that happened, you don't really think it happens. That is why I asked you to just point-blank answer the questions, not give me another lecture on the failings and other things that annoy you about women.

if it will ruin your life to be pregnant, thats not the babies problem!

I rather think that it is, actually.

You mean this sentence?



Yeah, I did miss that one. I think my brain might have skipped over it on an automatic assumption that it was insincere in the midst of all your other sentences in which you went on and on about all the ways women are at fault for their workplace experiences. I guess I was thinking, after reading all your other posts, that, while you acknowledge that it would be unfair if that happened, you don't really think it happens.

I don't claim that in some cases it may happen, I claim that it isn't as widespread as people claim, and they are other reasons then simple discrimination as to why it may seem like some of these things are happening. Like the reason why only 7% of women work in the mining industry isn't because they are discriminated against, unlike what the study claimed.

I don't claim that in some cases it may happen, I claim that it isn't as widespread as people claim, and they are other reasons then simple discrimination as to why it may seem like some of these things are happening. Like the reason why only 7% of women work in the mining industry isn't because they are discriminated against, unlike what the study claimed.
Which study? And did you look at the chart I posted for quick reference?

And again -- and for the last time -- I am not talking about jobs in which there is or may be an actual reason for gender disparity. I am talking about jobs in which there is obviously no such reason, and little to no actual disparity in the numbers of men and women doing the same jobs, but there still exists a disparity in pay. Jobs like office worker, retail sales, government office employee, etc. Hell, I'm not even talking about jobs in which I believe discrimination is the reason there aren't more women doing them, such as corporate executive level management. No, just the jobs where you already see large amounts of women working, and comparing their salaries to the salaries of men in the same jobs. Everything else you've talked about is beside that point. THAT is the point of equal pay for equal work -- where people do the same work, they should get the same pay, regardless of gender. Period. Getting more women into more kinds of jobs is a totally separate issue.

So, what am I really arguing against then, here? I am arguing against Self-sacrifice's argument that women don't do their jobs to the same extent that men do and therefore it's okay to pay them less, even when they do do it -- which is errant nonsense.

It's the mexicans who dominate politics working in tandem with the black women who dominate big business to opress white men who have little power. That's why.

YESSSSS WE RULE...YOU DROOL....
hand over the white chicks now!

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

ZOMG!!1! TEH EBIL MINURITES R TAKUNG OVER!!!!

What does "Equality" mean to you? There are people stronger and smarter than me, and there are people who are weaker and dumber. Some are rich, some are poor, some are sickly, some are "healthy as a horse". Some are courageous, some are cowardly. Some are better than others with tools and mechanical projects, some are better than others at interpersonal relations.

To me, "Equality" means that everyone is equal under the law. No person has any right to claim ownership of another person. No one has the right to claim authority over another person because of ancestry. No one has a right to claim superiority because of some cosmetic difference in appearance. No one has a right to claim a privilege because of their ancestors' state of servitude.

The past certainly influences the present, but the dead do not define the living. Your status in society is largely determined by your own actions. There is discrimination, but the solution is to prove that the bigots are wrong by proving your equality, not by demanding special treatment.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

I don't claim that in some cases it may happen, I claim that it isn't as widespread as people claim, and they are other reasons then simple discrimination as to why it may seem like some of these things are happening. Like the reason why only 7% of women work in the mining industry isn't because they are discriminated against, unlike what the study claimed.

Having read a number of your posts on this subject, I have a question--do you know anything about employment practices and statistics other than those concerning mining in Australia? You have consistently pointed to this as an example, but I don't think that it's representative at all, and I think the fact that you can't find any other examples is telling.

Having read a number of your posts on this subject, I have a question--do you know anything about employment practices and statistics other than those concerning mining in Australia? You have consistently pointed to this as an example, but I don't think that it's representative at all, and I think the fact that you can't find any other examples is telling.

It is one example and the reason why I brought it up was because it was a recent study that was reported on by the media, now I could bring in anopther few examples but they will be related to Australia, I will not claim I know about employment practices or statistics outside of Australia but inside Australia that is a different manner. You may have missed when I also posted about a finance comapany and what they do when hiring graduates for their annual intake but oh well.

So, what am I really arguing against then, here? I am arguing against Self-sacrifice's argument that women don't do their jobs to the same extent that men do and therefore it's okay to pay them less, even when they do do it -- which is errant nonsense.

Then why are you arguing against me then? I too have said that if the only difference between a man and a woman is the fact that they are of a different gender then they shouldn't be paid any different they should be paid the same.

Then why are you arguing against me then? I to have said that if the only difference between a man and a woman is the fact that they are of a different gender then they shouldn't be paid any different they should be paid the same.

Because in the same posts that you say that, you talk at much greater length about how it doesn't really happen or is very rare and that feminists are just inventing a problem. That's why I kept asking you to clarify exactly what your position on equal pay was, and now you've done in a way that is not confusing, and I thank you for it.

Oh by the way the reason why the mining industry has so many males is due to the fact that there are some 12 hours shifts for 14 days straight. You have no real contact you just work and then sleep. It is a horribly unplesant job. Prehaps the females are smart enough to avoid that kind of work.

Its loud so you loose your hearing, there is chemical pollution around and when you leave for your time off shift you need to find accomidation. If you want any sort of a steady life style mining is not the way to go.

Whilst the money is great the lifestyle is amongst the worst you can imagine.

Another industry with horrible conditions but great pay with reversed percentages would be the sex industry. No qualification is needed for each. You just sell your body for both of them.

People should decide if they want to become pregnant, but if they are and didnt plan it, it doesnt mean that they should kill their baby! The right to kill isnt a right! if it will ruin your life to be pregnant, thats not the babies problem! you were stupid, you didnt use birth control, condoms etc., and YOU took that risk! You shouldn't take another persons life just because it will make yours easier! that child deserves a life! Even if you dont want to go through the trouble, you have to, because its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!

That your belief on abortion

As for the child yes the child may be discriminated against because the child was born into this situation but still when the child grows up they can decide what to do with themselves. Work and get to where they want to be or repeat from the parents.

As im sure all people here dont believe all children should be solely raised by the state the best way of doing this would be to give a top quality eduaction and health system to the child. "Saying because you were a born in a bad family (try judging bad family properly) we are not going to give you any real punishment if you break the law" sends the wrong message.

Oh by the way the reason why the mining industry has so many males is due to the fact that there are some 12 hours shifts for 14 days straight. You have no real contact you just work and then sleep. It is a horribly unplesant job. Prehaps the females are smart enough to avoid that kind of work.

Its loud so you loose your hearing, there is chemical pollution around and when you leave for your time off shift you need to find accomidation. If you want any sort of a steady life style mining is not the way to go.

Whilst the money is great the lifestyle is amongst the worst you can imagine.

WTF?
Well I can tell that you have never worked in the mining industry.

True I havnt worked in the mining industry but I am friends with 2 miners who went go to Western Australia for 2 weeks then fly back, and repeat, and repeat. They are very rich at the moment. But I have already noticed the hearing loss in one of them

Poor babies cant call African Americans niggers, deny gays equal rights and protections, and just in general be bigoted jerk offs.


Poor, poor white man.

Poor babies cant call African Americans niggers, deny gays equal rights and protections, and just in general be bigoted jerk offs.


Poor, poor white man.

I know! This whole "equality" thing was sounding pretty good until they started taking away all of our discriminatory privileges! That wasn't in the brochure, let me tell you.

I know! This whole "equality" thing was sounding pretty good until they started taking away all of our discriminatory privileges! That wasn't in the brochure, let me tell you.

Does anyone remember the segment of TV Nation when Michael Moore investigated the plight of the "endangered white Congressman", and how the "scourge" of affirmative action had reduced their numbers from 91% of the House of Representatives to 87%?

I'm sure I'm remembering things incorrectly, but it was fricking genius. That whole series was a triumph.