Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Affirmative Action

122 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#61

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:19 PM Edited by sivispacem, 07 May 2013 - 05:22 PM.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
You went on to say that it was "ludicrous" that I stated Asians are smarter as an entire ethnic group. I did not say that. Please take 3 seconds to reread the following:

QUOTE
because Asians are smarter in their studies (obviously, not all the time)


Notice it now or not?

I noticed it before. That's not really caveating your views. That's basically saying "all Asians are smarter, apart from some". It doesn't really say anything. If you were going to make a sensible argument about Asians being smarter, you would...actually, scratch that. There is no sensible argument that can be made to say Asians are smarter than any other ethnic group. Because it isn't true, as I explained above- the issue of high average income amongst Asians living in the West, and the cultural differences in terms of how education is viewed in the East and West, means that higher-education level Asians typically work harder and have better educational levels even before they enter the higher education system. They tend to achieve highly but that's generally because those that strive for higher education already come from families in high income bands, and the children of families in high income bands tend to be better educated. Not smarter, better educated.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
I linked that article above because it was accurate with its claims (especially the sections I told you to read).

Accurate in its claims according to what? Your opinion? You've given me an opinion piece, with no hard statistics in it, and told me that it says something it categorically does not. If you aren't capable of properly comprehending your own damn sources, then I cannot foresee this discussion going particularly well for you. Would you like to point me to the part of the article where it says, categorically, as you have, that if it weren't for affirmative action US universities would only effectively be open to Asians? I would absolutely love for you to show me where you source said that. How about the statistical figures you claimed, indicating that Asians require a higher average SAT in order to advance into higher education, and that this is empirically a product of discrimination against Asian to prevent them from being disproportionately represented in higher education institutions? Your article didn't say that either as far as I could tell. It certainly didn't provide any statistical evidence for it.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
If you can't analyze an article, then I worry for you.

Given that you still seem to be claiming that the article says something it categorically does not, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension and analytical skills.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
But if this article isn't enough, please continue reading this post.

Sorry, but I don't really trust your opinion on the issue given that you've made some pretty idiotic statements so far in this discussion. You are, after all, the person who made the claim that without AA, all universities would solely have Asian students. I'm still waiting for you to quantify this utter tripe.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
Educational institutions that removed AA do have many more Asians than whites

Proof, please. Show me the statistical evidence that higher educational institutions without AA have more Asians enrolled than any other ethnic group, and that this cannot be down to regional variation or disproportionately high numbers of ethnic minorities in the immediate vicinity of institutions. Given that your argument of "Asians are more intelligent than everyone else" is equally applicable everywhere else, would you care to explain to me why nations that have outlawed affirmative action- like most of Europe- don't have disproportionately large numbers of domestic Asian students at their higher education establishments (and in the cases where there are disproportionately high numbers of Asian non-domicile students, this is generally down to large-scale overseas recruitment from areas where high-quality European education is treated as a commodity- I.E Asia)? Put simply, your argument is total nonsense.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
It is not important whether Asians come from upper/upper middle class families or not.

Actually, it's critically important, seen as it nullifies the argument of intelligence through racial identity, which has no empirical basis in fact, and instead highlights the fact that children from high income backgrounds do disproportionately well in educational terms compared to the mean because their income background entitles them to opportunities that worse-off individuals cannot have. Which is, in case you missed it above, a fact- something empirical, borne out in evidence and extensively researched.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 17:52)
Then come back and discuss with me. In the event that you do not look up these statistics, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Hang on, that's not how debates work. You can't make a spurious claim and then go tell a critic to go look up the statistics themselves. If you have no interest in substantiating your argument- and I mean properly substantiating your primary maxim, which was "If you removed affirmative action, then universities would solely consist of Asian students". You haven't proven this. You haven't even provided evidence vaguely related to it. If you can't even support your own argument, why should anyone listen to you?

gta 4 gamer
  • gta 4 gamer

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

#62

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:39 PM Edited by gta 4 gamer, 07 May 2013 - 05:46 PM.

QUOTE
Hang on, that's not how debates work. You can't make a spurious claim and then go tell a critic to go look up the statistics themselves. If you have no interest in substantiating your argument- and I mean properly substantiating your primary maxim, which was "If you removed affirmative action, then universities would solely consist of Asian students". You haven't proven this. You haven't even provided evidence vaguely related to it. If you can't even support your own argument, why should anyone listen to you?



Seeing as you are a supposed champion of statistics and facts, I believed you would've enjoyed looking up the data yourself. I guess not.

Affirmative Action in Universities: Who Gains?

UCSD Statistics

Berkeley Statistics

UCLA Statistics

I can't seem to find UC Davis' enrollment stats, but according to their wikipedia page, the following is confirmed:

Asians in the undergraduate level: 40%
Whites in the undergraduate level: 35%


QUOTE
Accurate in it's claims according to what? Your opinion? You've given me an opinion piece, with no hard statistics in it, and told me that it says something it categorically does not. If you aren't capable of properly comprehending your own damn sources, then I cannot foresee this discussion going particularly well for you. Would you like to point me to the part of the article where it says, categorically, as you have, that if it weren't for affirmative action US universities would only effectively be open to Asians? I would absolutely love for you to show me where you source said that. How about the statistical figures you claimed, indicating that Asians require a higher average SAT in order to advance into higher education? Your article didn't say that either as far as I could tell. It certainly didn't provide any statistical evidence for it.


You've been given "hard" statistics above (rest assured, some more will be provided for your happiness!)

I never said US universities will only be open to Asians. It'll be open to every single student with the credentials. If we are judging solely by credentials, all students, regardless of race or origin, will have a fair shot. This isn't the case with AA.

About the SAT, I do have statistical evidence to prove my point.

Enjoy.

AA will inevitably exist in one way or another. This is because universities want a diverse campus with students from every kind of background (religious, cultural, socioeconomic etc). And that is why I support AA.


QUOTE
Proof, please. Show me the statistical evidence that higher educational institutions without AA have more Asians enrolled than any other ethnic group, and that this cannot be down to regional variation or disproportionately high numbers of ethnic minorities in the immediate vicinity of institutions. Given that your argument of "Asians are more intelligent than everyone else" is equally applicable everywhere else, would you care to explain to me why nations that have outlawed affirmative action- like most of Europe- don't have disproportionately large numbers of domestic Asian students at their higher education establishments (and in the cases where there are disproportionately high numbers of Asian non-domicile students, this is generally down to large-scale overseas recruitment from areas where high-quality European education is treated as a commodity- I.E Asia)? Put simply, your argument is total nonsense.


Admittedly, higher education in Europe is not my cup of tea. So I can't speak about it (or you'll ask for 10,000 pieces of evidence). Although I do have a hypothesis regarding why Asians don't have higher proportions of students in European universities.



EDIT: I'll furnish you with more statistics if you deem necessary.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#63

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:53 PM

Is "asian" really a fair descriptor of anyone, really? It's about as frivolous a descriptor as "white" these days.

I know this isn't adding much to the conversation, but it just seems stupid to lump Koreans, Japanese and Chinese into the same "performance" group simply because of race.

hl_world
  • hl_world

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2005

#64

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:32 PM

QUOTE (.dre.)
We are one person. We don't belong to a color. We should all be given an equal and fair chance.

user posted image

QUOTE (Harley)
Every time someone advocates "freedom of association" in here, it just sounds like "I'd rather not work with ni**ers".

You obviously don't care about people's rights to live their own lives with their own preferences. You would rather they feel the heavy hand of the state to force your small minded dogma on them.

QUOTE (Harley)
Your entire post is so ridiculously small minded and tragic I don't know whether to laugh or cry that people are still being raised with those views.
I was raised by leftist parents who still believe in the blank slate. I, on the other hand, don't base my political views on fashion.

QUOTE (Harley)
I don't really agree with affirmative action, but it's necessary when we have such xenophobic employers. In a perfect (or just intelligent) world, race would have no bearing on the hiring process.

You're not happy there exist people who don't agree with you and so they must be made to conform. You're a tyrant; I get it.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#65

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:36 PM

^ It's actually depressing how warped and misguided you are. "I'm not advocating racism... I'm advocatin peoples' freedom to be racist, which is much more important than equality of opportunity."

You believe in keeping people down. You're a tyrant; I get it.

.dre.
  • .dre.

    reminder 6/12

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 May 2012

#66

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:43 PM

Still using images to reply to quotes? You're too old for that.

RomansMoobs
  • RomansMoobs

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2011

#67

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:38 AM

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 13:13)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 12:58)
QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 13:31)
If AA is removed, then whites would be at a disadvantage. Whites shouldn't be complaining, as AA balances everything out.

Wait, what?

Asians would control almost every single university (at least the top ones ---> such as those ranked top 20 in their fields) in terms of students if AA didn't exist.

Most international students going to a private school don't receive the same federal loans citizens of the United States grants. So instead of waiting on their money with a white/black/asian citizen of the USA, they'll take the international students who can have everything paid off sooner, or immediately.

f*cked up, but that's how most private schools do things.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#68

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:28 AM

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 18:39)
Seeing as you are a supposed champion of statistics and facts, I believed you would've enjoyed looking up the data yourself. I guess not.

That's certainly a bit of a revelation, and very interesting to read. However, interesting as it may be, it only demonstrates correlation. There appears to be a correlation in four institutions you've highlighted, all of which have removed AA, which all possess very high numbers of Asians. But correlation does not equal causality. Whilst one could hypothesise that the absence of AA plays a role in increasing recruitment amongst this minority, there are a myriad of other factors to consider. Not least the educational demographic of the institutions themselves. To my knowledge, you've selected four institutions with a propensity towards technological, scientific and technical disciplines- all of which are more highly represented amongst the Asian demographic than, say, the humanities of social sciences. All other factors need to be properly considered before you make the assessment that this primarily a product of the recruitment environment, specifically the presence or absence of affirmative action. For instance, do these same trends bear themselves out in other well regarded institutions that have favoured the humanities or social sciences?

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 18:39)
I never said US universities will only be open to Asians. It'll be open to every single student with the credentials. If we are judging solely by credentials, all students, regardless of race or origin, will have a fair shot. This isn't the case with AA.

Actually, you sort of did. In fact, you didn't even caveat it with "US universities". What you actually said, quoted verbatim, is:

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 14:13)
Asians would control almost every single university (at least the top ones ---> such as those ranked top 20 in their fields) in terms of students if AA didn't exist.

Which is extremely questionable. Forty percent of a demographic at an institution hardly constitutes "control", even if it does make them the largest ethnic group.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 18:39)
About the SAT, I do have statistical evidence to prove my point.

Again, interesting data, but it doesn't really disprove the point I was trying to make. You've provided a set of statistics showing Asians that complete the core curriculum have a higher average SAT score. When you factor in the not insignificant percentage difference between white and Asian students in terms of the numbers who fail to complete the curriculum and therefore aren't assigned an SAT score, I wonder if the outcome would be the same? Your source also made no claim, as far as I can see, of Asians requiring higher average SAT scores than white students to enter higher education. It also doesn't disprove my points about economic background superseding race.

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 18:39)
Admittedly, higher education in Europe is not my cup of tea. So I can't speak about it (or you'll ask for 10,000 pieces of evidence). Although I do have a hypothesis regarding why Asians don't have higher proportions of students in European universities.

I'd be interested to know what this theory was.

IM_YOUR_GOD
  • IM_YOUR_GOD

    Christian Zionist Rank 9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 May 2012

#69

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:29 AM

QUOTE (hl_world @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 03:34)
Affirmative Action isn't about justice or leveling the score. If they really wanted that, they would hold their hands out to the descendants of the African tribes who enslaved their ancestors and sold them to Europeans. Besides, Whites were not the first or only people to practice slavery, we were however the first to abolish it even to the point of spilling the blood of our own kind to see it end. Only a small minority of whites ever owned slaves anyway. One also has to wonder how much reparation Arabs in the Middle East give to their historically enslaved Africans.

Non-whites should thank their lucky stars they're allowed the privilege to live in our luxurious societies enjoying our many inventions and that we have given billions in charity to third world countries. As if that isn't enough, they revel in the moral legitimacy our own media and universities give to them. No, Affirmative Action is instead about opportunism; taking advantage of an emotionally abused and morally disarmed race of people- the only ones in this world who will put up with it.

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai)
Ok, so today in English, a couple kids debated on some issues, and an interesting one came up. Affirmative Action. For those who don't know what it is, it's where minorities have a better chance at getting into schools and good jobs, but some deem it as "unfair"

Nice control word; referring to people by how many of them there are.

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai)
As a black man well teenager I'm biased towards it a little bit because I have an advantage, and the fact that minorities in America has been through some sh*t, but I can see how some could call it unfair, but my question is, Is it really?

Non-whites fare a hell of a lot better in white countries than in their own. Answer me this honestly: do you regret the Transatlantic slave trade bearing in mind it's the only reason you're not currently dying of famine?

QUOTE (DarrinPA)
It shouldn't be based on the color of people's skin

It's not based on skin colour. It's based on race. Spend a couple of weeks under the sun and see if you qualify.

QUOTE (DarrinPA)
because to assume a black person is ALWAYS at a disadvantage is what I consider racist.

I don't know. Define racist anyway. Perhaps the proponents of AA know, deep down, that genetics plays a significant role in how well one does.

QUOTE (Melchior)
Yes, because white people already have an (arguably much greater) unfair advantage.

Yes, in the societies they have built. I don't know how to break this to you but whites kinda created Western civilization. confused.gif

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai)
Yes it is unfair, yet it's also unfair that an employer would choose a John Smith over a Tyrone Williams.

Freedom of Association- without it America is not the land of the free but a bureaucratic Marxist state. There is also job performance, intelligence and criminal tendencies to consider.

QUOTE (fgcarva1)
I believe affirmative action quotas can work for unskilled labour jobs

...while the more disadvantaged whites get screwed over further. Slavery was totally their fault after all.

I can't even begin to describe how much ignorance is in your post. You are way too easy. Lol.

So ill be kind and ask honest questions.

How much did you ever donate to all the third world country?

What media and university do you own? Or have you contributed a life changing asset?

Dying of famine? There people in America dying of hunger and diseases, surely?


Im sure your the type who believe the history doesn't go past 5,000 years.

BrownBear
  • BrownBear

    Dr. Green Thumb.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#70

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:35 AM

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 07:29)
QUOTE (hl_world @ Tuesday, May 7 2013, 03:34)
Affirmative Action isn't about justice or leveling the score. If they really wanted that, they would hold their hands out to the descendants of the African tribes who enslaved their ancestors and sold them to Europeans. Besides, Whites were not the first or only people to practice slavery, we were however the first to abolish it even to the point of spilling the blood of our own kind to see it end. Only a small minority of whites ever owned slaves anyway. One also has to wonder how much reparation Arabs in the Middle East give to their historically enslaved Africans.

Non-whites should thank their lucky stars they're allowed the privilege to live in our luxurious societies enjoying our many inventions and that we have given billions in charity to third world countries. As if that isn't enough, they revel in the moral legitimacy our own media and universities give to them. No, Affirmative Action is instead about opportunism; taking advantage of an emotionally abused and morally disarmed race of people- the only ones in this world who will put up with it.

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai)
Ok, so today in English, a couple kids debated on some issues, and an interesting one came up. Affirmative Action. For those who don't know what it is, it's where minorities have a better chance at getting into schools and good jobs, but some deem it as "unfair"

Nice control word; referring to people by how many of them there are.

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai)
As a black man well teenager I'm biased towards it a little bit because I have an advantage, and the fact that minorities in America has been through some sh*t, but I can see how some could call it unfair, but my question is, Is it really?

Non-whites fare a hell of a lot better in white countries than in their own. Answer me this honestly: do you regret the Transatlantic slave trade bearing in mind it's the only reason you're not currently dying of famine?

QUOTE (DarrinPA)
It shouldn't be based on the color of people's skin

It's not based on skin colour. It's based on race. Spend a couple of weeks under the sun and see if you qualify.

QUOTE (DarrinPA)
because to assume a black person is ALWAYS at a disadvantage is what I consider racist.

I don't know. Define racist anyway. Perhaps the proponents of AA know, deep down, that genetics plays a significant role in how well one does.

QUOTE (Melchior)
Yes, because white people already have an (arguably much greater) unfair advantage.

Yes, in the societies they have built. I don't know how to break this to you but whites kinda created Western civilization. confused.gif

QUOTE (Mr.Mordecai)
Yes it is unfair, yet it's also unfair that an employer would choose a John Smith over a Tyrone Williams.

Freedom of Association- without it America is not the land of the free but a bureaucratic Marxist state. There is also job performance, intelligence and criminal tendencies to consider.

QUOTE (fgcarva1)
I believe affirmative action quotas can work for unskilled labour jobs

...while the more disadvantaged whites get screwed over further. Slavery was totally their fault after all.



You disgust me.

"Answer me this honestly: do you regret the Transatlantic slave trade bearing in mind it's the only reason you're not currently dying of famine?"
Are you seriously condoning the slave trade? You obviously know nothing of history, I'm guessing your knowledge of African history doesn't go further than people in loin cloths chucking spears at each other. Let's bear in mind that Africa is one the richest places in the world in terms of natural resources, the state of Africa today can be firmly blamed on the European colonists who raped the continent during the 19th century. And now Africa has become the bastard child of colonialism, filled with poverty and violence because it's inhabitants were stripped of their identity and culture, trained to believe that they were saved from Africa's barbarism by European heroes.

"I don't know. Define racist anyway. Perhaps the proponents of AA know, deep down, that genetics plays a significant role in how well one does."
You must be stupid if you can't make the link between race, social conditions and education. People who live in violent, impoverished neighborhoods, generally don't do as well in school compared to someone from an affluent suburb.

"Yes, in the societies they have built. I don't know how to break this to you but whites kinda created Western civilization."
Oh dear, you're grasp on world history is beyond a joke. Considering that Europeans were living in mud huts and praying to rocks while they were erecting temples and palaces in the Middle East. And that mathematics, writing, farming etc. all originated from the Middle East/ Africa. Or that in Central Africa they built vast cities of unimaginable wealth while Europeans were just starting to cultivate crops.

"There is also job performance, intelligence and criminal tendencies to consider."
f*ck, you're killing me. I think you need to visit Glasgow, go to a poor neighborhood there and see you're proud, intelligent white people. This is the same as I've already said, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you're more likely to turn to crime and away from education, this is not racially specific, go to a poor Glasgow neighborhood and a poor London neighborhood and tell me what's different.

"...while the more disadvantaged whites get screwed over further. Slavery was totally their fault after all."
There are disadvantaged people everywhere, is it somehow more important because they're white? What about Native Americans? It seems they've been forgotten and left to rot on reservations, drinking themselves to death at the age of 40, but that doesn't matter because there are white people in trouble, right?

Harley
  • Harley

    Cyclop 9

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2003
  • None

#71

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:01 AM

QUOTE (hl_world @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 00:32)
QUOTE (Harley)
Every time someone advocates "freedom of association" in here, it just sounds like "I'd rather not work with ni**ers".

You obviously don't care about people's rights to live their own lives with their own preferences. You would rather they feel the heavy hand of the state to force your small minded dogma on them.

RAR RAR RAR KEEP DEM NIGGARZ AWAY FRERM ME
I respect people's rights to have a life however they want with whoever they want. I find it odd that yours entails living in a little Caucasian bubble, but it only really starts to grind my gears when your 'rights' come at the expense of another's.
What is it about other races that bothers you so much?

QUOTE (hl_world)
QUOTE (Harley)
Your entire post is so ridiculously small minded and tragic I don't know whether to laugh or cry that people are still being raised with those views.
I was raised by leftist parents who still believe in the blank slate. I, on the other hand, don't base my political views on fashion.

If only their parenting skills were on par.

QUOTE (hl_world)
QUOTE (Harley)
I don't really agree with affirmative action, but it's necessary when we have such xenophobic employers. In a perfect (or just intelligent) world, race would have no bearing on the hiring process.

You're not happy there exist people who don't agree with you and so they must be made to conform. You're a tyrant; I get it.

Nah, I'm just not a bigot.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#72

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:32 AM

I'm pretty sure that Freedom of Association doesn't actually entitle freedom to discriminate against people according to determining characteristics. That seems to be the interpretation of it being used by a few people in this thread but it's more closely related to freedom of assembly. It basically enshrines the right for an individual to decide their own membership of social groups and decide who they voluntarily associate with in a neutral, non-structured environment. It doesn't give carte blanche to discriminate against people.

Also, I find it utterly laughable that anyone could dismiss protection from discrimination as being tantamount to a "Bureaucratic Marxist state". Most of Northern and Western Europe enshrine protection from discrimination above free association and they rank so highly by every measure of freedom as to make the US look positively authoritarian.

gta 4 gamer
  • gta 4 gamer

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

#73

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:24 PM Edited by gta 4 gamer, 08 May 2013 - 04:36 PM.

**My responses are all underlined because something is wrong with my quote function.**

[QUOTE]That's certainly a bit of a revelation, and very interesting to read. However, interesting as it may be, it only demonstrates correlation. There appears to be a correlation in four institutions you've highlighted, all of which have removed AA, which all possess very high numbers of Asians. But correlation does not equal causality. Whilst one could hypothesise that the absence of AA plays a role in increasing recruitment amongst this minority, there are a myriad of other factors to consider. Not least the educational demographic of the institutions themselves. To my knowledge, you've selected four institutions with a propensity towards technological, scientific and technical disciplines- all of which are more highly represented amongst the Asian demographic than, say, the humanities of social sciences. All other factors need to be properly considered before you make the assessment that this primarily a product of the recruitment environment, specifically the presence or absence of affirmative action. For instance, do these same trends bear themselves out in other well regarded institutions that have favoured the humanities or social sciences?
[/QUOTE]

Just to clear things up, if you think I strategically chose those 4 institutions due to their propensity to the STEM disciplines, then you are mistaken. This just happens to be a coincidence. What is not a coincidence, however, is that those 4 institutions removed AA and Asians are the majority. And, for the record, many (probably the majority) of USA universities do not admit based on program, be it STEM fields or social sciences. I'm not trying to criticize you for this, since you weren't educated in America. Europe is a whole different beast about this (ie: Medical school starts at the undergraduate level in Europe for most people, but the process to become a physician is very different in North America). Therefore, your point about these trends bearing themselves out in the humanities or social sciences is not important.

Disclaimer: I'm not well versed in European higher education, but please correct me if I'm wrong so we can continue discussing this.


[QUOTE]Which is extremely questionable. Forty percent of a demographic at an institution hardly constitutes "control", even if it does make them the largest ethnic group.[/QUOTE]

Like I said before, AA will inevitably exist in one way or another. Thus, no institution will have one specific race "controlling" the campus (I admittedly used 'control' when I should have used 'majority' instead). Please refer back to my following statement:

[QUOTE]AA will inevitably exist in one way or another. This is because universities want a diverse campus with students from every kind of background (religious, cultural, socioeconomic etc). And that is why I support AA.[/QUOTE]


If I had the opportunity of attending a top university that specifically caters to rich white kids, then I would not attend due to the lack of diversity. And top institutions with ability of attracting students from different religious, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds will take advantage of this fact in order to create a better atmosphere.

[QUOTE]Again, interesting data, but it doesn't really disprove the point I was trying to make. You've provided a set of statistics showing Asians that complete the core curriculum have a higher average SAT score. When you factor in the not insignificant percentage difference between white and Asian students in terms of the numbers who fail to complete the curriculum and therefore aren't assigned an SAT score, I wonder if the outcome would be the same? Your source also made no claim, as far as I can see, of Asians requiring higher average SAT scores than white students to enter higher education. It also doesn't disprove my points about economic background superseding race.[/QUOTE]

I highlighted a portion of your statement. Isn't the whole point of AA to allow universities to pick and choose which students to admit? Yes it is. Ergo, universities will have higher expectations of groups that perform well (ie: Asian Americans) than groups that score weaker on SATs and academics (ie: African Americans, especially with the SAT). Even noted experts (admission officers) admit that there are different standards for each group of students. These experts do have the ethos to speak about this subject, seeing as their experience led them to conclusions.

Additionally, I never said economic background does not play a role. It does play a role but that is irrelevant since an SAT is supposed to be an equivalence exam for students, assuming the traditional form of AA is removed. Now, let me explain this point. In a perfect world, an Asian scoring a 2000 on the SAT should be held equally to the white student who scored the same score in terms of standardized test taking ability is concerned. Unfortunately, through this traditional form of AA, the nod could potentially be going to the white student since Asian Americans scored more than 2000 on the SAT and the aforementioned Asian student would be rejected because members of his group score higher.

Honestly, a 2000 on the SAT is a damn 2000 on the SAT. No exceptions. But the expectations for Asians is much higher than other groups, such as whites, or African Americans. As previously mentioned, experts agree with this. You should be reminded of the following statements an admission officer made:

[QUOTE]Commenting on similar efforts involving Asian applicants, Rod Bugarin, a former admissions officer at Wesleyan, Brown and Columbia, said: “The bar is different for every group. Anyone who works in the industry knows that.”[/QUOTE]







We can discuss my hypothesis about European education later. For now, we can go on with this discussion.



It seems that the quotations on my response are screwed. Not sure how to fix. Hope you don't get confused! My responses are all underlined.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#74

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:37 PM

I'm pressed for time and will respond to the rest of your post as and when I can, but I just wanted to start with this:

QUOTE (gta 4 gamer @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 17:24)
Just to clear things up, if you think I strategically chose those 4 institutions due to their propensity to the STEM disciplines, then you are mistaken. This just happens to be a coincidence. What is not a coincidence, however, is that those 4 institutions removed AA and Asians are the majority. And, for the record, many (probably the majority) of USA universities do not admit based on program, be it STEM fields or social sciences.

That's sort of my point, though. I'm aware that US institutions don't admit on a the same basis as European ones, but the fact remains that the three examples you have used are institutions that specialise in STEM subjects. You would expect a disproportionately high number of Asian students amongst them as the Asian minority is over-represented in technical disciplines due to cultural factors. I still maintain that whilst the correlation is compelling, it doesn't represent evidence of direct causality. What I would be interested to know is if the same statistics were borne out of a wider group of public universities which lacked AA provisions but which also tend to have reputations as institutions for the study of humanities and social sciences. I don't think you can make the conclusion you are making from these statistics without factoring institutions which cater predominantly for people studying non-STEM subjects- because without doing so you aren't actually properly representing the higher education landscape.

Oh, and your quote is broken because the [/b] is inside the end quote bracket.

hl_world
  • hl_world

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2005

#75

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:46 PM

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD)
How much did you ever donate to all the third world country?

What media and university do you own? Or have you contributed a life changing asset?

I'm sorry. When did this thread start to discuss affirmative action against me with accusations of past slavery on my part? I can assure everyone here: I have never owned any slaves.

I wonder why people think making issues personal is any sort of effective debating tactic. confused.gif

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD)
Dying of famine?

There people in America dying of hunger and diseases, surely?

Are you denying the OP would be much worse off if he was born in Africa?

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD)
Im sure your the type who believe the history doesn't go past 5,000 years.

Believes evolution stopped at the neck, tens of thousands of years ago, calls me a creationist. sigh.gif

QUOTE (brownbear)
Are you seriously condoning the slave trade?

It was a question directed at the OP. LOL Why would I condone it?

QUOTE (brownbear)
You obviously know nothing of history, I'm guessing your knowledge of African history doesn't go further than people in loin cloths chucking spears at each other. Let's bear in mind that Africa is one the richest places in the world in terms of natural resources

Key phrase in that butthurt rant.

QUOTE (brownbear)
the state of Africa today can be firmly blamed on the European colonists who raped the continent during the 19th century. And now Africa has become the bastard child of colonialism, filled with poverty and violence because it's inhabitants were stripped of their identity and culture, trained to believe that they were saved from Africa's barbarism by European heroes.

Meh, Partly correct. Africans don't belong in their current state of unending famine and overpopulation which was brought on by European colonialism and is perpetuated by the modern West. Africans belong in the state they were in before all that. Western intervention has polluted Africa with its own culture which is not suited to that environment or its fauna. It's sort of like living in the forest and leaving hamburger wrappers everywhere. Their numbers need to drastically reduce to meet the level at which their ecosystem can support them. They need to return to their tribal roots; it's a much healthier arrangement. Before this can happen, though, the European empires need to be completely dismantled and removed. It would be a big clean up job but it needs to be done. We also have to cease humanitarian aid as that just adds fuel to the fire.

QUOTE (brownbear)
You must be stupid if you can't make the link between race, social conditions and education. People who live in violent, impoverished neighborhoods, generally don't do as well in school compared to someone from an affluent suburb.

There is certainly a link but that in itself does not explain everything. Race is actually a better predictor of how much crime there will be than poverty. Besides, for all you know, it could be that race affects social conditions. It goes way deeper than skin colour.

QUOTE (brownbear)
Oh dear, you're grasp on world history is beyond a joke. Considering that Europeans were living in mud huts and praying to rocks while they were erecting temples and palaces in the Middle East. And that mathematics, writing, farming etc. all originated from the Middle East/ Africa.

Yes, the Arabs and Indians made many advancements in science and math but a lot of that was based on knowledge attained from the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. As for the Egyptians themselves, nobody really knows what stock they were. Judging from images and human remains, they were not black so you can forget about that. The slaves were, though. There is literally a desert of difference between North African and Sub Saharan African. I suspect they had a lot of European blood but I doubt they were white either.

QUOTE (brownbear)
Or that in Central Africa they built vast cities of unimaginable wealth

This I would like to know more about. Were these cities still in operation by colonialism and were they up to par with those of Europe? If not, who are you going to blame for their downfall?

QUOTE (brownbear)
while Europeans were just starting to cultivate crops.

Farming was key to survival in Europe. Our ancestors actually came from the fertile crescent.

QUOTE (brownbear)
f*ck, you're killing me. I think you need to visit Glasgow, go to a poor neighborhood there and see you're proud, intelligent white people. This is the same as I've already said, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you're more likely to turn to crime and away from education, this is not racially specific, go to a poor Glasgow neighborhood and a poor London neighborhood and tell me what's different.

Again, as I have already said, race is a better correlation for crime. The proportion of crime to poverty in blacks is higher than in whites.

QUOTE (brownbear)
There are disadvantaged people everywhere, is it somehow more important because they're white?

AA is saying that it's more important because they're not white.

QUOTE (brownbear)
What about Native Americans? It seems they've been forgotten and left to rot on reservations, drinking themselves to death at the age of 40, but that doesn't matter because there are white people in trouble, right?

What I would advocate is complete independence from the United States where they can rule themselves. Self determination, I believe, is a fundamental right.

QUOTE (Harley)
I respect people's rights to have a life however they want with whoever they want. I find it odd that yours entails living in a little Caucasian bubble, but it only really starts to grind my gears when your 'rights' come at the expense of another's.

Being employed is NOT a right. It is a mutual contract between two consenting adults. Look, if I pay my taxes and hire only whites, what have I taken from non-whites? How have I stepped on their toes?

It is your fake "rights" that step on the toes of others.

You know, I wish people actually lived with the conditions they vote for. That way, only the people who declare their support for affirmative action are eligible to give up their place in university/work/whatever for a poor, disadvantaged ethnic minority. The ones who don't support it would then be free from the consequences of the opinions of others.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
I'm pretty sure that Freedom of Association doesn't actually entitle freedom to discriminate against people according to determining characteristics.

Well maybe I should have made myself clearer. I advocate for complete freedom of association.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
Also, I find it utterly laughable that anyone could dismiss protection from discrimination as being tantamount to a "Bureaucratic Marxist state".

That's just what it is. The state has the power to force you away from your preferences and that is not something to be taken lightly.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
Most of Northern and Western Europe enshrine protection from discrimination above free association and they rank so highly by every measure of freedom as to make the US look positively authoritarian.

Just as long as you conform to the dominant leftist ideology. The UK jails people for "racist tweets"; you can actually be charged with "racism". Try questioning the sacred six million number in Germany and see what happens. That's not even going into a complete lack of gun rights. God help you if you defend yourself by harming an intruder.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#76

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:53 PM

I like how this hl_world guy thinks he's the voice of reason and some crusader for common sense, in a world run entirely by pie-in-the-sky leftists who tyrannically force their good intentions on others, and that we are all so shocked and unable to confront his typical young male opinions that we're "butthurt" and recoil at having our leftist dogma challenged, like vampires before a cross.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#77

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:26 PM

QUOTE (hl_world @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 18:46)
QUOTE (sivispacem)
Also, I find it utterly laughable that anyone could dismiss protection from discrimination as being tantamount to a "Bureaucratic Marxist state".

That's just what it is. The state has the power to force you away from your preferences and that is not something to be taken lightly. .

You should probably do a bit of research into political ideologies before you try and use them to furnish your arguments,. I fear I missed the bit about Marxism forcefully outlawing freedom of expression and thought when I studied it as part of my undergraduate qualification. Besides, hierarchical societal groupings always inhibit individual privilege for the purpose of creating a cohesive and operational relationship between participants. I find your earlier comments about wanting to have the freedom to discriminate as you please rather ironic given that meritocracy- the purest form of governance is effectively without discrimination based on determining characteristic and you seem quite happy for your hypothetical business to operate in a society to which you have already subscribed to the social contract of. You've effectively forsaken a proportion of your rights to live under the rule of law, in a functioning nation state. If you aren't happy with that deal, there's nothing stopping you from ceasing to be a citizen.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 18:46)
QUOTE (sivispacem)
Most of Northern and Western Europe enshrine protection from discrimination above free association and they rank so highly by every measure of freedom as to make the US look positively authoritarian.

Just as long as you conform to the dominant leftist ideology. The UK jails people for "racist tweets"; you can actually be charged with "racism". Try questioning the sacred six million number in Germany and see what happens. That's not even going into a complete lack of gun rights. God help you if you defend yourself by harming an intruder.

Right, because equality of opportunity, higher living standards, greater freedoms of the press, greater freedoms to own and operate businesses, more protection for the citizenry, greater freedom of political activity, greater freedom of movement and more direct democracy empowering the people all pale in comparison to the right to act like a twat to anyone you fancy without fear of reprisal and the right to have a cupboard full of guns. I would far rather live in a society that sets boundaries of decency on what the bigoted and the stupid are capable of inflaming, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people worldwide would agree with me. I like the idea that Europe penalises bigotry, xenophobia, racism and unpleasantness. It's what society wants to do.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#78

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:46 PM

It's also worth noting that it's not a matter of "running your business the way you want" since most employers don't make a conscious decision to discriminate against minorities, it's largely subconscious ("John Smith aye... you sound like you'd fit in around here, dunno about this Shaniqua Jackson character") and most people- employers who engage in discriminatory hiring included- support affirmative action.

It's certainly not as cut and dry as someone working their balls off through college, starting a business all on their own, hiring the best people for the job, who happen to be white (although that would never happen since affirmative action only applies to business with a certain number of employees, the odds of there being no qualified minority prospectives are pretty much nill) then some busy body leftists busting down his door draped in red flags to tell he can't run his business the way he wants in the new Obamocracy.

Freedom of association... great, but why is this arbitrary moral standard so much more important than freedom from discrimination? Surely a society needs the latter in order to fully utilise its potential, and the former isn't really important at all unless you're trying to cram everything into the right wing's rigid interpretive framework like a jigsaw piece that obviously won't fit. In other words, the only reason I can think that someone would oppose affirmative action as an affront to "freedom of association" is if they were desperate to maintain that government interference in the economy is always inherently bad... or they were a poorly disguised racist.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#79

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:50 PM

Plus I can't imagine the free market would treat bigoted employers well. You'd be a pretty sh*t employer as well as a sh*t human being if you prided your own personal prejudice above the survival and profitability of your company, and by association your staff who depend on your competence for their livelihood.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#80

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:07 PM Edited by The Scottish Guy, 08 May 2013 - 10:11 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 21:50)
Plus I can't imagine the free market would treat bigoted employers well. You'd be a pretty sh*t employer as well as a sh*t human being if you prided your own personal prejudice above the survival and profitability of your company, and by association your staff who depend on your competence for their livelihood.

So what about the non bigoted employer who could potentially have his/her/their company's future and survival put in jeopardy because he/she/they are forced to appoint a lesser qualified or experienced non white? This is just another failed idea from the 'do-gooder' left that is evidently the complete opposite of what it promotes.

Equality my balls.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#81

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:17 PM

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 08:07)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 21:50)
Plus I can't imagine the free market would treat bigoted employers well. You'd be a pretty sh*t employer as well as a sh*t human being if you prided your own personal prejudice above the survival and profitability of your company, and by association your staff who depend on your competence for their livelihood.

So what about the non bigoted employer who could potentially have his/her/their company's future and survival put in jeopardy because he/she/they are forced to appoint a lesser qualified or experienced non white? This is just another failed idea from the 'do-gooder' left that is evidently the complete opposite of what it promotes.

Equality my balls.

You should look up the term "Nirvanna fallacy." It's quite a leap to go from "there's a small minority of cases where this could have a negligible effect on a firm's performance" to "this idea has failed and must be scrapped entirely." The benefits still far outweigh the negatives- it's better that a few whites miss out on positions than countless minorities do.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#82

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:32 PM

You seem to be still living in the times of fifty years ago.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#83

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:43 PM

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 08:32)
You seem to be still living in the times of fifty years ago.

I didn't get that memo about prejudice and white privilege being completely abolished.

hl_world
  • hl_world

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2005

#84

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:17 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem)
You should probably do a bit of research into political ideologies before you try and use them to furnish your arguments,. I fear I missed the bit about Marxism forcefully outlawing freedom of expression and thought when I studied it as part of my undergraduate qualification.

Marxism > Cultural Marxism > anti white & anti male discrimination by the state. Marxism is the goal.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
Besides, hierarchical societal groupings always inhibit individual privilege for the purpose of creating a cohesive and operational relationship between participants.

Running your own business as you see fit is not a privilege, it is a right.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
I find your earlier comments about wanting to have the freedom to discriminate as you please rather ironic given that meritocracy- the purest form of governance is effectively without discrimination based on determining characteristic and you seem quite happy for your hypothetical business to operate in a society to which you have already subscribed to the social contract of.

I really don't care what irony you find. Unless you are a shareholder, you should have no say in how the business is run. If people want to discriminate, then let them discriminate. I they don't want to discriminate then don't force them to. Simple. Nothing merits the power your establishment has over the property and passive behaviour of private citizens.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
You've effectively forsaken a proportion of your rights to live under the rule of law, in a functioning nation state. If you aren't happy with that deal, there's nothing stopping you from ceasing to be a citizen.

Where do I go from there? Back to my ancestral homeland. Oh, that's right; I'm already there. Now it's run by corrupt politicians who do not act in the interests of the original stock, who merely take their votes and taxes for granted and who instead favour pandering to ethnic voting blocs and their corporate peers. This is my country; I do not have the privilege of moving back elsewhere like an immigrant jumping ship.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
Right, because equality of opportunity, higher living standards, greater freedoms of the press, greater freedoms to own and operate businesses, more protection for the citizenry, greater freedom of political activity, greater freedom of movement and more direct democracy empowering the people

Are you trying to link this "freedom from discrimination" with all those other benefits? Also, do not think I don't notice how you framed that. Nobody has the right to "not be offended" because that is not a right; that is a privilege. You are a propagandist by nature which is typical for leftists.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
all pale in comparison to the right to act like a twat to anyone you fancy without fear of reprisal and the right to have a cupboard full of guns.

The state does not own its citizens, it is the other way around. We are not livestock to be domesticated and declawed in preparation for regular shearing for tax revenue. We will pay taxes but only for the purpose of pooling our money together for things that benefit us. We are not pets, we are not children. We do not need the powers that be to dictate what we are allowed to say or own. Our only obligation is to respect the rights of each other.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
I would far rather live in a society that sets boundaries of decency on what the bigoted and the stupid are capable of inflaming, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people worldwide would agree with me. I like the idea that Europe penalises bigotry, xenophobia, racism and unpleasantness. It's what society wants to do.

You advocate for a puritanical society that enforces the modern zeitgeist; all else be damned, the truth is no defense. People like you jeered when Galileo was imprisoned. That is what the left has to offer despite its modern pretense of tolerance and love under the rainbow. I am not impressed.

hl_world
  • hl_world

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2005

#85

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:19 PM


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#86

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 22:17)
[I]t's better that a few whites miss out on positions than countless minorities do.

Maths?
Doesn't that work both ways?

It's better that a few <?> miss out on positions than countless <?> do.
How do the "few" compare to "countless"?

It would seem by that kind of reasoning to be better that everybody works four hours a day, than some work eight?

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#87

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:45 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 22:43)
QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 08:32)
You seem to be still living in the times of fifty years ago.

I didn't get that memo about prejudice and white privilege being completely abolished.

Well I hope it reaches you soon. It's about 52 years overdue.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#88

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:25 AM

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 09:45)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 22:43)
QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 08:32)
You seem to be still living in the times of fifty years ago.

I didn't get that memo about prejudice and white privilege being completely abolished.

Well I hope it reaches you soon. It's about 52 years overdue.

If you really do feel that whites aren't afforded any privilege, care to explain why minorities aren't represented proportionally in the upper classes of society?

You are living in a fantasy world.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#89

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:57 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:25)
QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 09:45)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 22:43)
QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 08:32)
You seem to be still living in the times of fifty years ago.

I didn't get that memo about prejudice and white privilege being completely abolished.

Well I hope it reaches you soon. It's about 52 years overdue.

If you really do feel that whites aren't afforded any privilege, care to explain why minorities aren't represented proportionally in the upper classes of society

It depends on what you consider proportional. If it's what I suspect you consider proportional, then it's because minorities are exactly that - a minority.

The trouble with you lot, is you push and push for something, and when you've acquired your reasonable (on all side's) goal, you realise just how much power you have over the ever growing emotionally weak (we have the media to thank for that), that you want to push your previously reasonable and accepted benchmark to the point where it is no longer the equality you so often claim to strive for.

Your breed are what I like to label, 'New Liberal'. Because there is nothing traditionally liberal about your causes, believe me.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#90

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:28 AM

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Wednesday, May 8 2013, 23:07)
So what about the non bigoted employer who could potentially have his/her/their company's future and survival put in jeopardy because he/she/they are forced to appoint a lesser qualified or experienced non white?

That example doesn't exist, because affirmative action doesn't force people to lower recruitment standards. The consideration of race and ethnicity in AA is placed below education, technical and vocational qualification, so your example won't actually be borne out in reality.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
Marxism > Cultural Marxism > anti white & anti male discrimination by the state. Marxism is the goal.

Utter bullsh*t. Don't say something you can't hope to substantiate, it makes you look extremely foolish. You see, loaded, unempirical and unsubstantiated claims like this do nothing to support your view. Kind of ironic that you should chose this as the jumping-off point for your argument given that you critique me for using a sardonic but nonetheless factually accurate framing of the discrepancy between interpreted rights in Europe and the US later in your response.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
Running your own business as you see fit is not a privilege, it is a right.

It's the market's, and to a lesser extent society's, right to punish you for running said business in a way the majority of citizens feel is improper. It doesn't really matter who does the punishing, the market or a government- the same principle applies. Therefore, the idea of true freedom of speech will never exist, because true freedom requires a state without a society which has no power and no monopoly on violence with which to punish people who disobey the laws and principles of it.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
I really don't care what irony you find. Unless you are a shareholder, you should have no say in how the business is run.

Nice idea in theory. Completely tripe in reality. The consumer has every bit as much of a say in the running of companies in proper competitive free markets as they can dictate the terms on which they wish to purchase goods and services. On the whole, people don't like bigots. Therefore, if companies are outed as endemically bigoted, it will impede their ability to operate. Effectively, the free market will perform the same role as a government would in taking a business to task for unfair or improper working practices. At the end of the day, the same conclusion would be reached, with the business being punished for improper behaviour in the eyes of society. I'm wondering if you missed the memo about the rising importance of corporate ethics that went round about 20 years ago.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
This is my country

Only for as long as you abide by it's social contract. That's all nationality really is- a voluntary choice to forsake certain rights in order to live inside a society defined by national borders.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
Nobody has the right to "not be offended" because that is not a right

I'm a firm believer in meritocracy. I question whether anyone has the right to judge another person in any way, least of all from a determining characteristic, without first demonstrating adequate knowledge and reasoning behind their opinion. But what you fail to see is that regardless of the system, bigotry will always be punished in one way or another. Absolute freedom of speech may mean theoretical entitlement, but it doesn't work like that in practice because what's deemed acceptable is decided by wider society, and even in an effectively stateless anarcho-capitalist society there would still be societal groups capable of punishing individuals and businesses for behaviour they saw as immoral or discriminatory. There's no real way of escaping that fact.


QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
typical for leftists.

I'm not a leftist, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
The state does not own its citizens

No, the citizens own the state insofar as they establish the boundaries for the social contract. You have a stake in that state if you wish to abide by the contract. If you don't wish to abide by, it, you have no real right to complain. The rules that you seem so dead-set again are for all intents and purposes exactly the same under every other system. Society judges what laws it deems to be applicable inside the geographical confined of that society's territory. You can kick and whine and scream about these laws as much as you please but unless the majority of a societal group agrees with you and conspires to change them, you don't really have any recourse other than to leave the society.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
You advocate for a puritanical society that enforces the modern zeitgeist

No, I advocate a society run on the principle of the least harm caused to the greatest number. Things that cannot be justified under that maxim are harmful for society and therefore generally shunned by it. I accept, unlike you, that laws are a product of wider society that are derived from an overriding moral standard present amongst the majority of a social grouping, and that the presiding feeling amongst Western societies in terms of attitude towards discrimination are that it is unacceptable. I also understand, unlike you, that any societal system will effectively end up enforcing the same or similar moral standards and will find a way of punishing those who break them, because the weight of societal pressure to act in cases of injustice surpasses the legal enshrinement of any man's rights, as principally some individual rights are sacrificed for the maintenance of a working state as per the social contract.

QUOTE (hl_world @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 00:17)
People like you jeered when Galileo was imprisoned.

There's a huge difference between entitlement to speak based on empirical evidence, and entitlement to speak based on personal whims and biases. Given that you seem incapable of understanding the fact that laws of this nature that prevent discrimination are a voluntary product of societal discourse, I don't really hold out much hope of you realising the fundamental difference in entitlement to demonstrate theories supported by empiricism, and theories supported by prejudice. Safe to say, though, that society tends to side with me on the issue.

QUOTE (The Scottish Guy @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 01:57)
The trouble with you lot

If I may interject, the trouble with you specifically seems to be your complete unwillingness to actually answer perfectly legitimate questions that are asked of you. We all know you can produce a nice tirade against certain individuals on these forums- a tirade that doesn't really say a lot; in fact a tirade that usually boils down to the web forum equivalent of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting at the top of your voice. But what amuses me is your complete unwillingness to actually remain in a debate once you've been one-upped by anyone. You've got no staying power, no tenacity. I mean given that your arguments essentially boil down to attempts to offend anyone who debates with you, I suppose that's a good thing, but for once I'd be interested to actually see you contribute something, anything, that didn't transpire to be a comment about how your superiority to everyone else possessed just by casting yourself as a right-wing hero figure waist deep in a sea of nimbish, petty liberalism means that you don't actually need to respond to legitimate critiques. But I fear I'm wasting my breath as you've never once been capable of properly expressing well-formed political views.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users