Petition to Support Affirmative Action in Basketball

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Up next... "My daddy was my mommy, and my other daddy was also."

[slim 1,530]

individuals achieve success for themselves and for their families (or not) not for total strangers.

Well, if that's the case, then why is there an "umbrella policy" that lops them all into the same group when it comes time to hand out preferential treatment?

Surely what's important to ask is why one social group (for example) occupies a generally lower place on the socioeconomic ladder.

It's important if you're a racist or sexist. If you truly believe everyone is equal you won't lop them into groups in the first place.

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.

Those are both racist views because they're dependent upon members being of a certain race in order to fall into one of the views.

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.

Or the individuals claiming that could just be lazy and inept. There are many examples of folks who refuse to be identified by their race alone and become very successful.

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.

Politicians won't agree on anything - that's why they're politicians!

The answer is you prohibit it and when someone feels the law or regulation has been violated, they take the offender to court.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, if that's the case, then why is there an "umbrella policy" that lops them all into the same group when it comes time to hand out preferential treatment?

Erm because someone has recognised that there is a problem?

It's important if you're a racist or sexist. If you truly believe everyone is equal you won't lop them into groups in the first place.

You're trying to be creative in your dishonesty. It's not racist or sexist to recognise that there are social inequalities that have to do with group rather than individual attributes.

Those are both racist views because they're dependent upon members being of a certain race in order to fall into one of the views.

This is also creative dishonesty. There is nothing prejudiced about identifying social problems - they either exist or they don't. It's racist to say, for example, that blacks are more likely to fail because they are inherently inferior to whites. There is no difference between whites and blacks in physical or mental characteristics. Hence the appropriate conclusion is that the disparities between the groups arise from social (meaning cultural and economic) rather than biological factors.

Or the individuals claiming that could just be lazy and inept. There are many examples of folks who refuse to be identified by their race alone and become very successful.

Race and sex need not be a barrier to success (and there are plenty of obvious examples) - yet statistically, the reverse seems to be the case for quite a few people. It's not something fictional that has been made up - it exists. You either acknowledge it or you don't. Trying to pretend that recognising it is racist is frankly bizarre.

Politicians won't agree on anything - that's why they're politicians!

The answer is you prohibit it and when someone feels the law or regulation has been violated, they take the offender to court.

That's a non-answer. I asked how you would prohibit it (this implies a practicable solution). You don't prohibit something by prohibiting it - that's nothing more than airy-fairy wordplay.

Edited July 13, 2011 by fishdude

[_Simpson_ 250]

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

Dont give them any ideas!

[Zero Sum 305]

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!

You quoted something, and you concluded something else. Nothing new. Care to try again?

[Zero Sum 305]

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

You betcha, I said that huh?

When I tell you reading is important, it isn't an insult- its a suggestion to take your time reading carefully, without a rush to conclude something that isn't there.

[slim 1,530]

Erm because someone has recognised that there is a problem?

You're trying to be creative in your dishonesty. It's not racist or sexist to recognise that there are social inequalities that have to do with group rather than individual attributes.

This is also creative dishonesty. There is nothing prejudiced about identifying social problems - they either exist or they don't. It's racist to say, for example, that blacks are more likely to fail because they are inherently inferior to whites. There is no difference between whites and blacks in physical or mental characteristics. Hence the appropriate conclusion is that the disparities between the groups arise from social (meaning cultural and economic) rather than biological factors.

Race and sex need not be a barrier to success (and there are plenty of obvious examples) - yet statistically, the reverse seems to be the case for quite a few people. It's not something fictional that has been made up - it exists. You either acknowledge it or you don't. Trying to pretend that recognising it is racist is frankly bizarre.

That's a non-answer. I asked how you would prohibit it (this implies a practicable solution). You don't prohibit something by prohibiting it - that's nothing more than airy-fairy wordplay.

You're acting as if skin color or lack of a ####### is a barrier to jobs. It's not. There are anti-discrimation laws in place already to protect against that.

What you do by requiring AA is say people of that color or people without a ####### are inferior and need extra help. That they can't do it on their own without government intervention.

That's simply not true. What's worse is you group them together based solely on their color or lack of #######. That is racist/sexist.

You quoted something, and you concluded something else. Nothing new. Care to try again?

When you state your opinion on something you support, conclusions can be drawn about what you don't support. If you say, "I'm a vegetarian" it can be concluded that you don't eat meat.

Much in the same way, when you say your grain of salt is that AA is necessary for access to work (and education) but not sports or optional things, a conclusion can be made that you believe in selectively applying racist policies when it is in line with your opinion.

You betcha, I said that huh?

When I tell you reading is important, it isn't an insult- its a suggestion to take your time reading carefully, without a rush to conclude something that isn't there.

Once again, conclusions can be made when you offer your support of something.

If you support affirmative action (in any form) you support discrimination. That is a fact. AA is a discriminatory policy based on race/sex. That is racist/sexist. To claim it's not, regardless of your historical basis or justification for it's implementation, is simply false.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No it is not racist or sexist. Studies that look at socioeconomic and other differences between different social groups and identify marked differences in quality of life outcomes between different segments of the population are either identifying real world problems or they are not.

I am making no value judgements about why those problems exist, i am simply acknowledging that they do exist and that they highlight inequalities in society. AA is one strategy designed to combat this. Once again, i am not offering a judgement on its effectiveness of lack thereof. You can't put forward or critique solutions unless you first acknowledge the underlying problem.

You seem to accept that there are problems (enough to say that discrimination should be prohibited by prohibiting it - but not how). You then about face to say that this act of recognising social problems is prejudiced, but of course only when i say it.

[Zero Sum 305]

It seems slim is making conclusions that can only be made if he can read things that are not there. This is not the first time he does this. There really is no logical discussion or debate against that.

Implementation- back in the day, had its reasons, and I stick to that factual basis for its inception. Perhaps if he would not deny reality and its consequences, he would notice that and everything else that has been written by myself against its ongoing use today. But I won't be holding much in terms of breath for him to finally 'get it.'

[slim 1,530]

No it is not racist or sexist.

How so? When you tell one group of people they can get preferential treatment based on their race alone and then another group of people is prohibited from that preferential treatment based on their race alone, that is a racist policy.

When someone without a ####### walks in the door and gets preferential treatment based on their lack of a ####### and then someone with a ####### walks in and is prohibited because they have a #######, that is sexist.

How is it not?

Studies that look at socioeconomic and other differences between different social groups and identify marked differences in quality of life outcomes between different segments of the population are either identifying real world problems or they are not.

I am making no value judgements about why those problems exist, i am simply acknowledging that they do exist and that they highlight inequalities in society. AA is one strategy designed to combat this. Once again, i am not offering a judgement on its effectiveness of lack thereof. You can't put forward or critique solutions unless you first acknowledge the underlying problem.

You can put forward or critique solutions even before they're implemented - especially when they're racist or sexist. How do you combat racism/sexism with racist/sexist policies?

You seem to accept that there are problems (enough to say that discrimination should be prohibited by prohibiting it - but not how). You then about face to say that this act of recognising social problems is prejudiced, but of course only when i say it.

Prohibited by prohibiting it. That's pretty simple. Make it illegal and when someone has a problem with it, they take the offender to court. I clearly stated that position in my previous post. I'll go farther and say we do not need an agency or wing of the government to conduct administration of this. We need people to be able to take their cases to court. They can do that.

When you identify people based on their race or sex, it is prejudiced because you're identifying them as a group with specific underlying opinions that're formed about them already. Black people have darker skin than whites. Let's put them into the same group. Women don't have a #######. Let's put them into the same group. That is prejudiced.

It seems slim is making conclusions that can only be made if he can read things that are not there. This is not the first time he does this. There really is no logical discussion or debate against that.

Don't get mad when people disagree with your opinion on something. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that they disagree with you. It doesn't even mean that they can't read. It simply means they disagree with your opinion.

Don't take it so personally.

Implementation- back in the day, had its reasons, and I stick to that factual basis for its inception. Perhaps if he would not deny reality and its consequences, he would notice that and everything else that has been written by myself against its ongoing use today. But I won't be holding much in terms of breath for him to finally 'get it.'

You wrote, and I quoted it before, that AA grants access to a livelihood (and the education for it) and cannot do so for optional aspects of life like sports teams.

Did you not post that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So by this rationale slim, there is no point prohibiting discrimination, since recognising that discrimination may have taken place is prejudiced. That's um.... pretty out there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What? Where are getting this guff? I am not saying that anyone should get 'preferential treatment' on the basis of group characteristics. No where, no how.

Perhaps you should start debating with yourself, since you seem to invent arguments that don't exist.

[Zero Sum 305]

Slim is still going on a false premise- now I am pretty much convinced he is doing so on purpose to antagonize, not really debate. You can put all the information about historical realities within 6 inches of his face and he'll still ignore it for what it is.

There really is no point to attempting a debate with someone that fails at taking factual, written, clear writing. Be it a complete f*ckup of reading or merely more silly antagonism, its not really worth it. Because he sees what he wants to see, there is no logical argument that can convince him otherwise.