Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Level Playing Field

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:20:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM, innomen wrote:
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.

Equality of Oppurtunity is an egalitarian pipe dream... It cannot exist in a wo whererld genetic differenes are inherent
President of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:22:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM, innomen wrote:
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.

Is there really equal opportunity?
What is the disability act for then?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:31:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:20:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM, innomen wrote:
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.

Equality of Oppurtunity is an egalitarian pipe dream... It cannot exist in a wo whererld genetic differenes are inherent

I don't think you understand what a meritocracy means. If someone is inherently incapable of performing a task then that task will not be given to him. However, without legitimate reason the option for working toward that task should not be eliminated.

We've actually made huge strides in equality of opportunity since the founding of this country.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:39:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:31:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:20:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM, innomen wrote:
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.

Equality of Oppurtunity is an egalitarian pipe dream... It cannot exist in a wo whererld genetic differenes are inherent

I don't think you understand what a meritocracy means. If someone is inherently incapable of performing a task then that task will not be given to him. However, without legitimate reason the option for working toward that task should not be eliminated.

We've actually made huge strides in equality of opportunity since the founding of this country.

Have we?

I'm not so sure... When we were founded, people didn't get punished for success by progressive income taxes
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:42:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:39:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:31:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:20:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM, innomen wrote:
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.

Equality of Oppurtunity is an egalitarian pipe dream... It cannot exist in a wo whererld genetic differenes are inherent

I don't think you understand what a meritocracy means. If someone is inherently incapable of performing a task then that task will not be given to him. However, without legitimate reason the option for working toward that task should not be eliminated.

We've actually made huge strides in equality of opportunity since the founding of this country.

Have we?

I'm not so sure... When we were founded, people didn't get punished for success by progressive income taxes

Progressive Income tax vs Women and Blacks not being viewed as people. Hmmmm. A reeeeeaaaal stumper.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:39:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:31:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:20:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:59 PM, innomen wrote:
Like what Ore_Ele said, equality of opportunity is what we should want, not equality of outcome. Nepotism and other forms of discrimination are inherently wrong and bad for the process of law and commerce. Whereas a meritocracy with equal opportunity toward prosperity is optimum.

Equality of Oppurtunity is an egalitarian pipe dream... It cannot exist in a wo whererld genetic differenes are inherent

I don't think you understand what a meritocracy means. If someone is inherently incapable of performing a task then that task will not be given to him. However, without legitimate reason the option for working toward that task should not be eliminated.

We've actually made huge strides in equality of opportunity since the founding of this country.

Have we?

I'm not so sure... When we were founded, people didn't get punished for success by progressive income taxes

When we were founded the idea of someone leading a country who wasn't born into the job was unthinkable. Furthermore the idea of someone who came from nothing and could rise to the top was also unthinkable. We are not a perfect meritocracy, but compared to where we were it's a million times better.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:12:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Quotas are contrary to a meritocracy and equal opportunity.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:27:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."

I think that there may not be an official quota number that anyone could point to, but you can find many instances where people of greater merit were denied a job or a placement in a school for someone of lower merit, and the difference that can be found is the race.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:37:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:27:31 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."

I think that there may not be an official quota number that anyone could point to, but you can find many instances where people of greater merit were denied a job or a placement in a school for someone of lower merit, and the difference that can be found is the race.

And if those are challenged, the courts will rule that quota's are unconsititutional by the Civil Rights Act.

See Regents of Univeristy of Cali vs Bakke (from 1978).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is also a big difference of organizations trying to impose Quotas, and claiming that Affirmative Action laws impose Quotas.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:37:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:27:31 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."

I think that there may not be an official quota number that anyone could point to, but you can find many instances where people of greater merit were denied a job or a placement in a school for someone of lower merit, and the difference that can be found is the race.

And if those are challenged, the courts will rule that quota's are unconsititutional by the Civil Rights Act.

See Regents of Univeristy of Cali vs Bakke (from 1978).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is also a big difference of organizations trying to impose Quotas, and claiming that Affirmative Action laws impose Quotas.

You are correct, in that if Harvard chooses to limit the number of Asians coming into their university (which they are), that's their business, but if a government is dictating that it's wrong. However, should the Portland Police Department give a special bit of advantage toward an African American because the force is looking a bit white, then you get into tricky areas. If the police department can actually function in the community with greater racial representation, then there is a case to be made, but don't lie, and don't do it on the basis of political correctness, but on actual need.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:51:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:44:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:37:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:27:31 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."

I think that there may not be an official quota number that anyone could point to, but you can find many instances where people of greater merit were denied a job or a placement in a school for someone of lower merit, and the difference that can be found is the race.

And if those are challenged, the courts will rule that quota's are unconsititutional by the Civil Rights Act.

See Regents of Univeristy of Cali vs Bakke (from 1978).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is also a big difference of organizations trying to impose Quotas, and claiming that Affirmative Action laws impose Quotas.

You are correct, in that if Harvard chooses to limit the number of Asians coming into their university (which they are), that's their business, but if a government is dictating that it's wrong. However, should the Portland Police Department give a special bit of advantage toward an African American because the force is looking a bit white, then you get into tricky areas. If the police department can actually function in the community with greater racial representation, then there is a case to be made, but don't lie, and don't do it on the basis of political correctness, but on actual need.

Agreed. Blacks in gang communities (this really goes for all races in a gang community of that race) are more likely to talk with a black police officer than a white police officer, so for the sake of accurate justice, black police officers are needed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:54:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:51:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:44:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:37:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:27:31 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."

I think that there may not be an official quota number that anyone could point to, but you can find many instances where people of greater merit were denied a job or a placement in a school for someone of lower merit, and the difference that can be found is the race.

And if those are challenged, the courts will rule that quota's are unconsititutional by the Civil Rights Act.

See Regents of Univeristy of Cali vs Bakke (from 1978).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is also a big difference of organizations trying to impose Quotas, and claiming that Affirmative Action laws impose Quotas.

You are correct, in that if Harvard chooses to limit the number of Asians coming into their university (which they are), that's their business, but if a government is dictating that it's wrong. However, should the Portland Police Department give a special bit of advantage toward an African American because the force is looking a bit white, then you get into tricky areas. If the police department can actually function in the community with greater racial representation, then there is a case to be made, but don't lie, and don't do it on the basis of political correctness, but on actual need.

Agreed. Blacks in gang communities (this really goes for all races in a gang community of that race) are more likely to talk with a black police officer than a white police officer, so for the sake of accurate justice, black police officers are needed.

Which is different than a politically correct need.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:51:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:44:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:37:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:27:31 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:24:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:46:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:41:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:38:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:29:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:18:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:08:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:04:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I always here leftists talk about how we need a "level playing field"... or "Equality of Oppurtunity" (this one is used by conservative a lot too)...

The problem here is that humans are genetically different. Some humans are taller, smarter, and more socially apt than others... This means that there will never be a truly level playing field....

Egalitarians need to give up on this pipe dream and realize that reality is quite unequal

To level something does not always mean to make 100% level, but can often mean to make more level than previously was. The "level the playing" is often used to level out discriminative bits that are not scientificially backed. Like women not being allowed in upper management back in the day. You don't see (on a large scale) people saying that Basketball needs to hire more short people so that their average height matches with the national average height.

Affirmative action laws were based on getting rid of a natural inequity... Whites, for example, have higher IQs than blacks... So they have higher incomes and better education... This is a genetic inequity... Yet, Affirmative Action tried to get rid of this and "level the playing field"... and, as we all know, Affirmative action did far more harm than good

You obviously have no idea what Affirmative Action is. I'm guessing you think it is what individuals of talk shows on the right have told you it is. They've done a good job at smearing the actual definition.

Let's look at the Civil Rights Act of 64, where it all started.

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

"it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy."

" It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

Affirmative Action does not mean quotas, or hiring minorities that are less qualified.

You know that is bullsh!t... Of course, Affirmative Action means quotas... Do you really think that blacks don't have an advantage over whites when trying to get into college or get a job?

Quotas have been put before the supreme court which has ruled them unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you believe that there are AA laws like that, please present the actual laws. I provided you a link to the very text of the 1964 civil rights act.

Ya, and the text you presented certainly allows for quotas, even if they are not quotas by name...

The fact is that if I was black, I would have a much better chance of getting into a better college next year...

Actually, they don't allow for quotas (based on skin color), because they explicitly say you can't hire nor fire someone because of their skin color. So you can't hire someone just because they are black (which is needed in order to make a racial quota).

If you are refering to that it was easier for Blacks in 1964 to get into college than in 1963, then yes. Because in 1963, it was legal for a college to exclude them for no other reason than because they were black. By removing that racial barrier, it has "leveled the playing field."

I think that there may not be an official quota number that anyone could point to, but you can find many instances where people of greater merit were denied a job or a placement in a school for someone of lower merit, and the difference that can be found is the race.

And if those are challenged, the courts will rule that quota's are unconsititutional by the Civil Rights Act.

See Regents of Univeristy of Cali vs Bakke (from 1978).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is also a big difference of organizations trying to impose Quotas, and claiming that Affirmative Action laws impose Quotas.

You are correct, in that if Harvard chooses to limit the number of Asians coming into their university (which they are), that's their business, but if a government is dictating that it's wrong. However, should the Portland Police Department give a special bit of advantage toward an African American because the force is looking a bit white, then you get into tricky areas. If the police department can actually function in the community with greater racial representation, then there is a case to be made, but don't lie, and don't do it on the basis of political correctness, but on actual need.

Agreed. Blacks in gang communities (this really goes for all races in a gang community of that race) are more likely to talk with a black police officer than a white police officer, so for the sake of accurate justice, black police officers are needed.

Do you know that Police Discrimination is really a myth?
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:36:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just because quotas are illegal doesn't make them any less the epitome of affirmative action. They are a major affirmative action policy in India for example.

The lack of strict quotas in the US is true, but it merely means our affirmative action is lesser.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:36:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just because quotas are illegal doesn't make them any less the epitome of affirmative action. They are a major affirmative action policy in India for example.

The lack of strict quotas in the US is true, but it merely means our affirmative action is lesser.

Difference between Affirmative Action and affirmative action is like the difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism.

Our AA is much different than India's. If India is supporting quota's then they are ultimately harming themselves. Since ours are that race should play NO part at all, ours are benefitial. The two cannot really be grouped together, no more than An-Cap and An-Com can both be grouped together as "anarchy." While, yes, they are "anarchy" they are still very different from each other.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:48:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:40:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:36:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just because quotas are illegal doesn't make them any less the epitome of affirmative action. They are a major affirmative action policy in India for example.

The lack of strict quotas in the US is true, but it merely means our affirmative action is lesser.

Difference between Affirmative Action and affirmative action is like the difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism.
So vague and never the same between two affirmative actionists in other words. :P


Since ours are that race should play NO part at all
Race playing no part at all is not an NEVER HAS BEEN an affirmative action policy. That's a nonaction policy. Affirmative action requires affirming race-- for example, granting racial tiebreakers, a common policy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:51:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:48:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:40:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:36:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just because quotas are illegal doesn't make them any less the epitome of affirmative action. They are a major affirmative action policy in India for example.

The lack of strict quotas in the US is true, but it merely means our affirmative action is lesser.

Difference between Affirmative Action and affirmative action is like the difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism.
So vague and never the same between two affirmative actionists in other words. :P

Kind of like two libertarians are never the same.



Since ours are that race should play NO part at all
Race playing no part at all is not an NEVER HAS BEEN an affirmative action policy. That's a nonaction policy. Affirmative action requires affirming race-- for example, granting racial tiebreakers, a common policy.

The written law disagrees with you.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:05:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:51:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:48:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:40:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:36:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just because quotas are illegal doesn't make them any less the epitome of affirmative action. They are a major affirmative action policy in India for example.

The lack of strict quotas in the US is true, but it merely means our affirmative action is lesser.

Difference between Affirmative Action and affirmative action is like the difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism.
So vague and never the same between two affirmative actionists in other words. :P

Kind of like two libertarians are never the same.

On that linguistic issue anyway. Which is why I never give a damn whether it's capitalized.



Since ours are that race should play NO part at all
Race playing no part at all is not an NEVER HAS BEEN an affirmative action policy. That's a nonaction policy. Affirmative action requires affirming race-- for example, granting racial tiebreakers, a common policy.

The written law disagrees with you.
In Seattle, racial-tiebreaker affirmative action was only struck down in the public schools in 2007. And that seems to mostly be due to a lack of serious racist history in Seattle. In 2003 the University of Michigan's law school was explicitly permitted to "Take race into account" as a soft variable. It said that 25 years from now (which is now 17 years from now) such would be illegal, but for the time being its okay. At the same time, the policy of U of Michigan's undergraduate admissions, with an explicit point system, was ruled illegal. So basically, the legality of race depends on whether you put a number on it, i.e., whether you have any goddamn integrity. If you have no goddamn integrity about it, you're free to discriminate against whitey in a holistic review where it's unclear just how much you're doing it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:10:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, note that a bill advocating what you claim "affirmative action" is-- i.e., equal treatment, nondiscrimination, colorblindness-- was struck down by a US district court. Why? Because it doesn't allow what affirmative action actually is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:27:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 6:05:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:51:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:48:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:40:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/10/2011 5:36:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just because quotas are illegal doesn't make them any less the epitome of affirmative action. They are a major affirmative action policy in India for example.

The lack of strict quotas in the US is true, but it merely means our affirmative action is lesser.

Difference between Affirmative Action and affirmative action is like the difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism.
So vague and never the same between two affirmative actionists in other words. :P

Kind of like two libertarians are never the same.

On that linguistic issue anyway. Which is why I never give a damn whether it's capitalized.



Since ours are that race should play NO part at all
Race playing no part at all is not an NEVER HAS BEEN an affirmative action policy. That's a nonaction policy. Affirmative action requires affirming race-- for example, granting racial tiebreakers, a common policy.

The written law disagrees with you.
In Seattle, racial-tiebreaker affirmative action was only struck down in the public schools in 2007. And that seems to mostly be due to a lack of serious racist history in Seattle. In 2003 the University of Michigan's law school was explicitly permitted to "Take race into account" as a soft variable. It said that 25 years from now (which is now 17 years from now) such would be illegal, but for the time being its okay. At the same time, the policy of U of Michigan's undergraduate admissions, with an explicit point system, was ruled illegal. So basically, the legality of race depends on whether you put a number on it, i.e., whether you have any goddamn integrity. If you have no goddamn integrity about it, you're free to discriminate against whitey in a holistic review where it's unclear just how much you're doing it.

And private employers can do the same, can't they? They can say in their minds "I'm not hiring no sticking blacks," so long as they don't actually say that out loud and find any other excuse for doing so.

Back to the stuff that matters

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...

"Citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings last year in two cases against the University of Michigan, the court said admissions policies that use race as a factor must also be flexible, avoid quotas, minimize harm and be employed only after considering race-neutral alternatives.

"The School District's racial tiebreaker fails virtually every one of the narrow tailoring requirements," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the majority."

I'm guessing after the 9th shot this down in 2004, it took another 3 years for the Supreme court to shot it down? Either way, such a law is not an affirmative action law.

http://www.dol.gov...

This also has links to relative laws, like EO11246 (which I believe I've linked to you in the past, or to someone else). Which says, "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

We can go to bloody affirmativeaction.org (http://www.affirmativeaction.org...) and see what they say it is, "Such steps are not designed to offer preferential treatment to, or exclude from participation, any group. To the contrary, Affirmative Action policies are intended to promote access for the traditionally underrepresented through heightened outreach and efforts at inclusion."

Of course, that is their little 2 sentence intro, so you may think that it is not fully accurate. Well, here is a 68 page slide of it. http://www.affirmativeaction.org...

How about the NAACP, I mean, the "National Association for the Advancement of Colord People" surely must be one of the most reverse racist groups, right?

http://www.naacp.org...

"The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"