Petition to Support Affirmative Action in Basketball

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah look at gay rights in California as a whole and then get back to me.

My statement was quite specific, yours is lazy. How about YOU tell me what you understand about the current state of gay rights in California "as a whole"

[Zero Sum 305]

Yeah look at gay rights in California as a whole and then get back to me.

It must be my reading comprehension.

No, I think its something else. Why repeat things that are already there? Probably refusal to read. Different than not understanding words in English.

[_Simpson_ 250]

My statement was quite specific, yours is lazy. How about YOU tell me what you understand about the current state of gay rights in California "as a whole"

Why do you need specifics? Do you not believe that Cal is one of the more favorable states when it comes to gay rights?

No, I think its something else. Why repeat things that are already there? Probably refusal to read. Different than not understanding words in English.

OK then, you will have to excuse me I'm going to go work on my reading comprehension skills.

[Zero Sum 305]

Why do you need specifics? Do you not believe that Cal is one of the more favorable states when it comes to gay rights?

OK then, you will have to excuse me I'm going to go work on my reading comprehension skills.

Or you can stop being obtuse and do what I told you to do in the first place- read the stupid post before you got silly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why do you need specifics? Do you not believe that Cal is one of the more favorable states when it comes to gay rights?

I said that CA had banned gay marriage, I haven't kept up to date with subsequent developments but this is a fact.

You said I should overlook this by looking at "gay rights in California as a whole" and then "getting back to you".

And you ask why I need specifics...?

[slim 1,530]

Guys, plese stop turning this nice AA thread into a gay rights thread.

I asked for proof, not a retarded summary that you paraphrase in your own special way to constitute something that isn't.

I quoted your posts. If there's proof there, how come you didn't read it? You can read, can't you? You're always droning on and on and onnnnnnnnnnnnnnn about other people not reading. Perhaps you should take a dose of your own medicine. READ!

It is indeed a clumsy way of addressing social/class inequalities.

If they're social/class inequalities, why are we dealing with them on a racial basis?

Women still get paid less than men for doing equivalent jobs, blacks are statistically more likely to experience poverty than whites - have higher infant mortality, greater likelihood of being unemployed, lower levels of general education etc. etc.

The groups you mention have federally protected equal access to jobs. Should we institute new policies to make sure women get paid more, blacks don't experience poverty?

On some level you have to accept that these are current and real problems. The question is what can or should be done to address these inequalities.

Isn't protecting equal access enough?

You're suggesting people need more than opportunity. You're indicating they need help.

Indeed. I think all people that have any ability to think rationally and progressively should be able to move on, literally, and not just gripe to others to do so while ranting their anger which is indicative of deep-seated issues. By doing so they, IMO, improve their lot in life independent of what is done to assist people based on an obvious history with its consequences.

White people should move on. According to you, black people still need help. How long should we keep helping them?

We have a black president. Now if that isn't proof enough that this country is playing on an equal field I don't know what is.

There's our proof that AA works. He benefited from AA and thusly, we all benefited from AA. AA is a great policy and has directly contributed to the hope and change of this country.

If we keep it up, imagine the America we can have!

[_Simpson_ 250]

I said that CA had banned gay marriage, I haven't kept up to date with subsequent developments but this is a fact.

You said I should overlook this by looking at "gay rights in California as a whole" and then "getting back to you".

And you ask why I need specifics...?

I was talking about gay rights and the progress that has been made. You brought Cal gay marriage ban into the topic. As a whole Cal is very favorable to gays. Do you disagree with this?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was talking about gay rights and the progress that has been made. You brought Cal gay marriage ban into the topic. As a whole Cal is very favorable to gays. Do you disagree with this?

You said - look at NYC (which has legalised gay marriage) to see forward progress. I said - look at CA (which has banned gay marriage) to see backward progress.

If you have a point to share - you should make it, rather than dealing in hand-waving nonsense. How about you make your point and "get back to me"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If they're social/class inequalities, why are we dealing with them on a racial basis?

Are we? Since when AA EXCLUSIVELY about race?

The groups you mention have federally protected equal access to jobs. Should we institute new policies to make sure women get paid more, blacks don't experience poverty?

I don't know. What do you think should be done? Why do you think these differences exist?

Isn't protecting equal access enough?

You're suggesting people need more than opportunity. You're indicating they need help.

No. I'm suggesting that there are marked social and socio-economic inequalities between different social groups. AA is one strategy designed to address these issues - whether it is or has been effective in different applications is entirely separate. The question is - if you recognise that one social group is significantly more likely than another to experience poverty (one example), should the State do something to address it?

[_Simpson_ 250]

You said - look at NYC (which has legalised gay marriage) to see forward progress. I said - look at CA (which has banned gay marriage) to see backward progress.

If you have a point to share - you should make it, rather than dealing in hand-waving nonsense. How about you make your point and "get back to me"?

Because I made the point that gay right are coming along just fine without a AA sort of approach. I pointed to the progress in NY and now you want to make it all about gay marriage. Although a set back in Cal. that doesn't mean that Cal as a whole hasn't made tremendous progress.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because I made the point that gay right are coming along just fine without a AA sort of approach. I pointed to the progress in NY and now you want to make it all about gay marriage. Although a set back in Cal. that doesn't mean that Cal as a whole hasn't made tremendous progress.

The progress in NY is the legalisation of gay marriage...

[slim 1,530]

Are we? Since when AA EXCLUSIVELY about race?

It's not. We're allowed to discriminate against people with no ####### as well.

I don't know. What do you think should be done? Why do you think these differences exist?

I think we should have federal regulations in place that prohibit discrimination by companies engaged in interstate commerce.

I could care less why the differences exist. What I care about is affording every American an equal opportunity to engage in business. Notice I didn't say "special" opportunity. I said equal. Prohibiting discrimination does that. Requiring a certain quota based on race or sex does not.

No. I'm suggesting that there are marked social and socio-economic inequalities between different social groups. AA is one strategy designed to address these issues - whether it is or has been effective in different applications is entirely separate. The question is - if you recognise that one social group is significantly more likely than another to experience poverty (one example), should the State do something to address it?

Absolutely the state should address it. They should prohibit discrimination.

After that, it's on the social group themselves to achieve success. Part of the problem we've had is some people think it's the government's job to ensure everyone is successful. It's not. The government's job is to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve success - that's why we have a federal government and not 50 independent states.

[_Simpson_ 250]

The progress in NY is the legalisation of gay marriage...

Yes, they want the same rights as everyone else. Hardly a AA sort of approach.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not. We're allowed to discriminate against people with no ####### as well.

I think we should have federal regulations in place that prohibit discrimination by companies engaged in interstate commerce.

I could care less why the differences exist. What I care about is affording every American an equal opportunity to engage in business. Notice I didn't say "special" opportunity. I said equal. Prohibiting discrimination does that. Requiring a certain quota based on race or sex does not.

Absolutely the state should address it. They should prohibit discrimination.

After that, it's on the social group themselves to achieve success. Part of the problem we've had is some people think it's the government's job to ensure everyone is successful. It's not. The government's job is to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve success - that's why we have a federal government and not 50 independent states.

I'm not sure how it's "on a social group" to "achieve success" - individuals achieve success for themselves and for their families (or not) not for total strangers. Surely what's important to ask is why one social group (for example) occupies a generally lower place on the socioeconomic ladder. There are only two basic conclusions that can be reached here.

1) There is something about the members of that social group that is generally deficient to everyone else (if we're talking about race - this would be the racist view)

2) The failure of the social group points towards unfairness in society.

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two if you accept that individuals are held back by insular attitudes that breed resentment/entitlement mentalities AND that discrimination (either now or in the past) has resulted in a playing field that isn't level. A vicious circle, in other words.

I guess the question becomes - how would you prohibit discrimination? How is it possible to identify discrimination and enforce it in real terms?

I should add - I'm not expecting an answer to this, since generations of politicians have been unable to agree on it.

Yes, they want the same rights as everyone else. Hardly a AA sort of approach.

I didn't say it was. I pointed out (in the example of supposedly liberal CA) that there is clearly a very long way to go.

Edited July 13, 2011 by fishdude

[slim 1,530]

Yes, they want the same rights as everyone else. Hardly a AA sort of approach.

Maybe New York will mandate that 12% of all marriages must be homosexual in nature!