Missing bird-dinosaur link found?

[Mr_Eon]

Quote[/b] ]1. How fair was it for that white girl in Michigan to be denied a spot in university BECAUSE OF HER RACE? If she was a member of the minority she would have been admitted because she fully met the requirementsAnd don't tell me that's not racism, because you bloody well know it is! If you think it was fair, than why does the Supreme Court of the United States believe that it's unconstitutional?

Hey, I agree with you. It's racist. It's discrimination on a racial basis, can't argue with the definition. So the question becomes WHY was there no place for her? Did the university elect to take an unqualified applicant to fill her place? Did they keep a place they might well have otherwise offered empty, simply to maintain some arbitary percentage? In either of the two situations above, then I'd say they acted incorrectly - after all, it's not the universities job to ensure they are provided with sufficient minority candidates OF THE RIGHT QUALITY. If they simply chose to accept a DIFFERENT candidate, with DIFFERENT qualities, but STILL QUALIFIED, then I'm sorry - but you'll often be selected or rejected based on criteria that don't appear on your CV. That's life.

Quote[/b] ]2. What have modern day white people done to deserve being denied jobs because so idiots think there's not enough "representation"? What have I, an 18 year old white Canadian male, EVER done to deserve unfair treatment because of my race? I have never exhibited racist behaviour, nor have I ever descriminated against another human being because of their race. So why should I be denied jobs Eon? How is that justified? Why is it right? Why is it not racism?

Simply because the selection board feels that your inclusion would hurt the student body, or the company. That's the only criteria, and it's the GOVERNMENTS job to ensure that sufficient minority workers are given places. Provided those workers are qualified for the work they do - what's the problem? Again, if there isn't any discrimination in the work place in favour of white people, then the simple process of selecting the right candidate will ensure that the correct racial diversity is maintained ANYWAY. Unless, of course, the body responsible for setting diversification targets is off base in its guidelines - in which case, those guidelines need to be modified.

Have you ever considered that diversification actually affects "minorities" too? For example, if a company is at or over it's diversity quota for Blacks, but under its quota for Hispanics then blacks will be under the same competitive disadvantage versus Hispanic applicants as their white colleagues.

Oooh... Equality...

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]So the question becomes WHY was there no place for her? Did the university elect to take an unqualified applicant to fill her place? Did they keep a place they might well have otherwise offered empty, simply to maintain some arbitary percentage?

The University of Michigan denied her based COMPLETELY on her race.  The reason the Supreme Court is looking into it is because she WAS a QUALIFIED STUDENT for the program, and if she was a member of the minorities that the university supports under their AA policy she would have been admitted.  They have an affirmative action policy where you get 20 admission points if you are Native American, Black, or Hispanic.  To give you an idea as to how unfair this actually is, if you have a perfect SAT score, you get 12 admission points.  This is what affirmative action stands for Eon, and you yourself said they acted inappropriately.  So why is it unfair in this situation but fair everywhere else?  What is different about AA everywhere else if you know FULL WELL this is what's happenning everywhere?

Quote[/b] ]Simply because the selection board feels that your inclusion would hurt the student body, or the company.

Is that the best you could do to respond to that?  They feel another white person on the job would hurt the company?  That's a terrible argument man.  If having another white person on board hurts the company, than that company is racist, end of story.  You're saying that this is a just, fair, and completely morally correct reason for denying white people?  Does this statement also apply to minorities that that same idiotic company may believe will "hurt the company"?  Finally, should a company than be required to hire minorities they believe will "hurt the company"(because of AA of course) while having to deny me for the same reason?  You can't see the racism in that?

Quote[/b] ]That's the only criteria, and it's the GOVERNMENTS job to ensure that sufficient minority workers are given places.

Actually, I think it's the applicants responsibility to ensure they DESERVE a job.  Because you're a member of a particular race doesn't make you a better applicant than a more qualified member of the majority do you not agree?  If so, than why are you for allowing qualified, hard-working white people to be denied jobs because of their race?  If not, what are you smoking, and can I have some please?

Quote[/b] ]Provided those workers are qualified for the work they do - what's the problem?

There is no problem, unless they get selected over a better applicant, and the only reason is their race.

Quote[/b] ]Again, if there isn't any discrimination in the work place in favour of white people, then the simple process of selecting the right candidate will ensure that the correct racial diversity is maintained ANYWAY.

Not neccessarily.  If your little philosophy were true, than why are most players in the NHL white?  Why are most players in the NBA black?  What about the field of science and tech?  More male workers populate this field!  This is simply because more males are INTERESTED in pursing that career!  Are the owners of teams in the NHL racist for selecting mostly white players, or is it because most of the players to choose from are white?  Likewise, are the owners of the teams in the NBA racist for selecting mostly black players, or is it because most of the players to choose from are black?  Having more of a particular group doing a particular job doesn't indicate racism, it indicates interest of that particular group, or number of people from that group applying for that position.  Why is it that you seem to be looking at numbers without trying to understand the reasons for those numbers?

Quote[/b] ]Have you ever considered that diversification actually affects "minorities" too? For example, if a company is at or over it's diversity quota for Blacks, but under its quota for Hispanics then blacks will be under the same competitive disadvantage versus Hispanic applicants as their white colleagues.

That thought did cross my mind actually, however it's not a valid argument.  How many policies in place have a quota for a set number of white people?  My understanding of the quota system is that you must have AT LEAST X NUMBER OF MINORITIES, and after that it's fair game.  Note the AT LEAST there, because I don't believe I've ever heard of a case where a member of the minority was turned away because of some companies idiotic AA policy, have you?  If you have, maybe things in the UK work differently than in North America, or maybe there is some element of this idiotic policy that I am not familiar with.  Either way, quotas cause nothing but problems for a company, and here's why.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation for a second.  If you've got 9 white applicants with a 90% qualification rating(I'm just making this rating up arbitrarily), but you've only got space for 7 of them, and you need three minorities, who, for the sake of argument, have an 85% qualification rating, doesn't that hurt the company, and therefore, the general economy?

Furthermore, AA is DIRECTED AT WHITE PEOPLE, NOT AT MINORITIES.  It's purpose is to "diversify" a workforce "made up mostly of white people".  Therefore, your argument is not valid.

Why is it you liberals think that every change has to be abrupt and immediate?  Why don't you liberals ever give the time required for changes to take place?  The workplace will eventually be diversified anyway because minorities have education and employment opportunities equal to white people.  There is no need to unfairly shove people in in an effort to "diversify", ignoring the rights of the majority in the process.  Why don't you allow equally qualified minorities to be highered solely off their abilities, as EVERYONE should be?  Why do liberals keep telling them that they can't do it without AA's help?  I certainly think that minorities are now smart enough and good enough to gain their employment on their own merit!

 

[Mr_Eon]

Actually, I do agree with you that in a fair world there would be a "quota" of whites too... And perhaps when you saw how little that particular quota was in breach you'd begin to see the point of this.

There. Is. An. Imbalance.

How many times do I have to say it? Despite the discrimination you percieve against white males in the workplace I really don't see any shortage of them. Look at the tops jobs - it's a white male world at the top, Tom.

Let me give you an analogy. You have to push a boulder up a hill, I have to try to push that same boulder down that same hill. Who has to try the hardest? Like it or not we've started at the TOP of that hill - the statistics bear it out. White males have the best job prospects of ANY other group. There's no reason that I can see why that should be the case on a strictly qualitative basis. Would you like to tell me a strictly qualitative basis - or is the best argument you have "Minorities aren't as interested in white collar jobs as Whites"?

Seriously - you think Mexicans LIKE itinerant fruit picking? Perhaps you see them sat round open air campfires in California sayin things like "Pepe's a chip off the old block - after Harvard he got offered Head of Personnel at IBM, but he told me he wanted to follow the proud lifestyle of his ancestors, picking oranges for below minimum-wage."?

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]There. Is. An. Imbalance.

There are poor people too!  Maybe that's the governments fault!  Or societies!  People have to stop blaming others and stop asking for freebies, it's irritating.

Quote[/b] ]Despite the discrimination you percieve against white males in the workplace I really don't see any shortage of them. Look at the tops jobs - it's a white male world at the top, Tom.

So your solution to the evil white males in the workforce is to execute a policy of blatant racism?  You don't see a problem with that?  You're in support of racist policies?  Or is racism against whites not within the liberal definition of racism?

Quote[/b] ]Like it or not we've started at the TOP of that hill - the statistics bear it out. White males have the best job prospects of ANY other group. There's no reason that I can see why that should be the case on a strictly qualitative basis. Would you like to tell me a strictly qualitative basis - or is the best argument you have "Minorities aren't as interested in white collar jobs as Whites"?

Oh that's demagogery!  That's a bunch of liberal rhetoric too!  You know full well that there are plenty of white people who are just getting by!  You're making an idiotic assumption that all white people are rich, and all minorities live in the ghetto.  What makes your point so interesting is that you claim to be giving poor and "underpriveledged" people a boost, but when it comes to poor and "underpriveledged" white people, you have no problem in looking them in the eye and giving them the finger!  You also claim to want equality, but don't have a problem with denying white people jobs SOLELY on their race, and not selecting a staff based upon qualifications.  Nope, no double standards here!

Plus, my father came to this country with very little.  His first house in Canada was a one room shack!  They had to leave a lot to escape the Communists in Russia that were trying to kill my grandfather(I forgot how much of a paradise Communism was, sorry).  What did he do?  You think he sat their and waited for the government to give everything to him?  No!  He got out there, got a job and an education, and became very successful, so don't sit there and tell me that other "poor" people can't do the same thing, particularly in this world where opportunities are abundant!

Quote[/b] ]Seriously - you think Mexicans LIKE itinerant fruit picking?

You think that's all Mexican people do?  This explains a lot.  Bonus points for ignoring the fact that there are also WHITE fruit farmers, the same race of people you liberals enjoy taking shots at so much.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps you see them sat round open air campfires in California sayin things like "Pepe's a chip off the old block - after Harvard he got offered Head of Personnel at IBM, but he told me he wanted to follow the proud lifestyle of his ancestors, picking oranges for below minimum-wage."?

And we all know that there is no such thing as a poor white person, because white people are taken from cradle to grave licking the silver spoon and drinking from the golden cup!  Sorry Eon, but if you really cared about poor people than you'd have trouble with poor white folks not getting jobs to middle class minorities that have it better than them.

<sarcasm>Man, if only we had Communism all of our problems would be solved!  Then everyone would be poor, and no one would be able to pursue their dream!  It would be fair than!  *sigh* If only....</sarcasm>

 

[Mr_Eon]

You already know that if I had my way, someones parents being poor as churchmice wouldn't affect their access to education or cultural wealth. In that sense inherited wealth wouldn't hinder someone in the quest for a decent job - so that's another area where you and I are at odds, since you seem to enjoy the current system of patronage and privilige - even if you didn't benefit from it!

I tell you... I could lob a rock at a collection of Fortune 500 CEO's and CFO's - you tell me what odds you reckon I have of hitting a Mexican or even a Black guy? That must be a freak of statistics, eh? Perhaps minorities just aren't interested in those jobs - as you said...

Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

All About the (White) Benjamins
Here's something: being half-Mexican, half-white, but showing my more HIspanic culture in my flesh, I am commonly grouped and looked at as nothing more than one of those tenth-grade educated Mexican gangsters that so populate my town.
Well, I let people judge me by how I present my intellect...so far it's met the expected quota.
If I met a CEO, chances are he's a tall, old, white guy. Chances are if I meet the employee of the man, it's a tall, young, black, white, or Mexican man or woman. I categorize anyone white with the white people, not just American white people.
I think that if Harvard education could be given to most people in my town, we'd have a city full of Mexican lawyers. But, Harvard's for the wealthy, and there are only two ways to become that: born into it, or you work for it for anywhere from a few to sixty years. Most people are in something called the rat race: they stay mediocre in their wages, neither rich nor poor, until they die, working endlessly for their boss.
BUt you know, I also wouldn't want the government to take a communist stance on education, not that they already aren't: controlling all education for the masses. The US government already controls virtually the entire nation's educational system, through the US Department of Education. Fwhee! Now, however, we still have a choice of where to attend education: pay for it through taxes, or fork out anywhere from 250 to 600 bucks a child a month at a private school worth something, or homeschool the kid, and invest time from work in the kid, as well as in education supplies, which, by the way, aren't cheap.
So most people would rather take a rather crappy public education, just because it's more affordable. The government has purposely rigged it that way: most people to go to public education, and through that, most people stay at a rather minimal or below-minimal level of work, and those that went through private school are out on top and are their CEO.
Uncool, right? So is it discrimination on race, or on wealth? Who knows?
But the Communistic stance would be: no one has any choice. The ruling class would dominate it all, and all the rest of the people (which would be a high 90% of it) would be beneath them, doing slave labor like working the assembly line in a Gerbert's factory.
I dunno. I've been private-schooled and homeschooled all my life. I like it. Most of my public school friends are astounded by what I say and by what I know. Too much for them. And they're in the same grade as me. But you know, there is always a chance that one of them will be my CEO one day...

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]You already know that if I had my way, someones parents being poor as churchmice wouldn't affect their access to education or cultural wealth.

And, as you know, it doesn't have to affect their access to education or cultural wealth(public education is free).  Want proof?  Talk to my father.  Why do you think I know your argument is invalid?  There are legions of rags to riches stories because the people worked hard and earned their keep!  Problems you have will rule your life if you let them.  You have to have a willingness to work, and if you don't than why should we push away other people who have worked hard and fully deserve it because you need a job?  If you're not willing to work hard to get an education and a decent job than that's tough cookies for you!  Again, don't tell me it can't be done, because if my dad could become a successful history teacher after living in a one room shack when he came to Canada than it must also be possible for others to do the same.

Quote[/b] ]In that sense inherited wealth wouldn't hinder someone in the quest for a decent job - so that's another area where you and I are at odds, since you seem to enjoy the current system of patronage and privilige - even if you didn't benefit from it!

I believe that ANYONE can do ANYTHING they set their mind to.  If you sit there and feel sorry for yourself because other people have more money than you do, and you don't work as a result than sorry, you will receive no assisstance from me.  I'm not going to bother helping you if you don't want to do anything for yourself.  I also believe that if you were born rich than that is NOT YOUR FAULT, and being put at a disadvantage because of something you can't help is archaic and disgusting.  Furthermore, I think that you're going to have to learn one day that not all minorities have it bad, and not all white people are licking the silver spoon.  You seem to have that belief hammered into your head, why you do is something I am unsure of, and you still havn't effectively demonstrated how you care about poor people gaining employment, but you still believe it is just for companies to deny poor white folks jobs to give them to wealthier minorities because you want to "diversefy the workforce" without giving it the time to do so on its own.  I would like you to tell me something else, besides an answer to the above question.  Do you believe that a student who ended up, from no fault of their own of course, being born to rich parants, should be denied a job even if they graduated university with the highest honours in all fields of study, earned a Ph. D, and currently are the most qualified person for the job, if there is an underpriveleged or a minority looking for a job?

One thing that I find puzzling is that you don't belive it was fair for that Michigan student to lose her university spot based solely on race, yet you say AA is right and just.  DUDE, THAT'S WHAT AA DOES!!!!  How can you not support AA in one case but believe in others that white people being denied jobs based on race is ok, when we both know that that's one and the same thing?  I mean isn't it idiotic to give an applicant 20 points for being a member of a particular race, yet only allotting 12 points for a perfect SAT score?  Or is stupidity like that the "cost of diversifying the school"?  I'm not against diversity, but I believe that people should make it in life based upon their qualifications, not their race.

Lastly, I havn't benefitted from being a "rich kid". I live as a member of the middle class. However, if someone who was born a family that has 50 billion dollars, gains a job instead of me because they were more qualified, than I have to re-evaluate my own qualifications and see where I need improvement, not go and whine about how much better off he was than I was!

Quote[/b] ]I tell you... I could lob a rock at a collection of Fortune 500 CEO's and CFO's - you tell me what odds you reckon I have of hitting a Mexican or even a Black guy? That must be a freak of statistics, eh? Perhaps minorities just aren't interested in those jobs - as you said...

Or, it might be because white Europeans colonized this area, as you know, and began to start business and build connections with others.  Maybe family tradition has something to do with it?  Maybe those people who have those CEO positions actually worked for it!  Do you think we should begin forcing companies to no longer allow whites to be CEOs because it doesn't satisfy the diversity laws of the PC police?  Or should we give the job to the person who is most deserving, even if they happen to be a member of the white race who we all know have had more advantages than everyone else, and we all know that no white person has ever had to deal with hardship?  Ok, that last part was sarcastic...although I'm getting the impression that you actually believe it

As for statistics, you have to analyze ALL factors when making a statistical analysis.  It seems to me that all you liberals do is take numbers without paying attention to the causes and say "HEY, LOOK AT THIS!".  I studied statistics and how they are used, and you'd be amazed at the different factors that can affect statistical data.  

The Toronto Star put the city in a tizzy about police doing "racial profiling", and they gave statistics they believe supported their case, which I know is a load of crap but some people actually bought it.  They took numbers at face value and said "HEY, LOOK AT THIS!", without giving any analysis of the causes of those numbers.  Honestly, some of them weren't even that startling.  They were even complaining about how people were pulled over for what they considered "no good reason", and got nailed for driving without insurance and what not.  Am I supposed to feel sorry for them or something?

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]The government has purposely rigged it that way: most people to go to public education, and through that, most people stay at a rather minimal or below-minimal level of work, and those that went through private school are out on top and are their CEO.

Interesting.  In Canada, there are legions of elite students being cranked out of public school.  Private school doesn't always make you better, but it might be different for some folks.

Homeschooling isn't my cup of tea.  I think it's important for a child to build relationships with others in class, but that's just my opinion on the deal.

 

[Mr_Eon]

<shakes his head> "You liberals"? The fact that I can be termed liberal just for being compassionate is a greater denigration of the current North American political climate than you know.

Do I think somebody should be PUNISHED for being from a wealthy background? No. Do I think that they should have EVERYTHING easier and to a higher standard than somebody from a poorer background? No.

The sytem you support merely reinforces Status Quo Ante - a perpetuation of the current population model ad infinitum. No change. No social mobility. I'll admit that there is a definite hierarchy of talent involved - most people who are willing to work hard and who are intelligent can make SOMETHING of themselves in our society. But why should the hard working and intelligent lower class person have to work for ten or fifteen years simply to get to where the less hard working, more priviliged person started off at the age of 22?

I'm not sure what it's like where you live - but there's a saying here that it's not WHAT you know it's WHO you know. People of a certain social strata tend to network more easily WITHIN that strata. When you have a niche that is dominated by that strata it becomes harder and harder for those who don't talk the talk to penetrate that niche - even if they walk the walk. That's just a fact.

Cronyism, Nepotism - these things actually work AGAINST the society that they inhabit. They are ENDEMIC amongst you "Conservatives" - here in the UK we have what's called the "Old Boys network". It's not as powerful as it used to be, but it's still a huge factor in the Armed Forces, Business and Government. I KNOW it's still a factor in the US, although it tends to be along different lines - but it's there. I'm not sure about Canada - perhaps you can enlighten me.

There have been black people in the US for as long as there has BEEN colonials there. Conservatism kept them enslaved and then segregated and finally it has tried to keep them marginalised. The times are changing - and more and more policy should be replaced by common sense. Why do you think ex-immigrants are STILL linked by their poor backgrounds - even four or five generations later?

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]<shakes his head> "You liberals"? The fact that I can be termed liberal just for being compassionate is a greater denigration of  the current North American political climate than you know.

If I'm socially(and fiscally) a conservative, and we practially NEVER agree on anything, what does that make you?  Your views resonante with pretty well every liberal that I know, so why are you surprised to see me call you a liberal?  Are you suggesting that you're a conservative?

As for compassion.  I don't believe it's right to allow people to get jobs when they're unqualified just because they've "had it harder than everyone else".  The fact that you don't believe they can do anything about it on their own is incredibly interesting as well.  Why don't you talk to the creater of Magna Corp, and find out how he started off.  People can make it in life if they want to.  Everyone has access to public school, and every underpriveledged person is eligible for a student loan that they are not required to pay off until 6 months after they get employment(or after they get a degree, I have to check).  Therefore, they WILL succeed IF AND ONLY IF they do the required work, just like EVERYONE else!

As for your continued insistance that white people are all advantaged, I'd like you to say that to the face of two of my white male buddies who are in the lower bracket financially.  We'll see what they have to say about that!  I'm very close to these two gentlemen and really want them to be successful.  Am I worried that their financial state will affect their success?  No, because both of them work their butts off and earn everything they get.  Why is it you don't think others can do the same?

Quote[/b] ]Do I think somebody should be PUNISHED for being from a wealthy background? No.

And being denied a job because of they were born to wealthy parents isn't a punishment?  I'd really hate to see how you define that word....

Quote[/b] ]The sytem you support merely reinforces Status Quo Ante - a perpetuation of the current population model ad infinitum. No change. No social mobility. I'll admit that there is a definite hierarchy of talent involved - most people who are willing to work hard and who are intelligent can make SOMETHING of themselves in our society. But why should the hard working and intelligent lower class person have to work for ten or fifteen years simply to get to where the less hard working, more priviliged person started off at the age of 22?

And what does this have to do with the racism involved in AA?

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure what it's like where you live - but there's a saying here that it's not WHAT you know it's WHO you know.

I saw a statistic a few years back that about 70% of jobs were earned through some kind of connection.  Yeah, that sounds about right.  But that also means that the other 30% had to have been able to fight it out in the trenches and SUCCEEDED!

Quote[/b] ]People of a certain social strata tend to network more easily WITHIN that strata. When you have a niche that is dominated by that strata it becomes harder and harder for those who don't talk the talk to penetrate that niche - even if they walk the walk. That's just a fact.

And this has something to do with descriminating against whites because....?

Quote[/b] ]Cronyism, Nepotism - these things actually work AGAINST the society that they inhabit. They are ENDEMIC amongst you "Conservatives"

Ah yes, I forgot you liberals are always fair and always just!  You never give a family member or a friend a helping hand if you own a business, and that little racism against whites in the form of AA is just and fair.  Right......

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure about Canada - perhaps you can enlighten me.

Not familiar with that, sorry.  But even if there is a group trying to help its members get a job, than how is this different from AA, or the companies that make money off of finding you a job?

Quote[/b] ]Conservatism kept them enslaved and then segregated and finally it has tried to keep them marginalised.

Can you remind me what role I played in this so that I can understand why I am being treated unfairly?

Quote[/b] ]The times are changing - and more and more policy should be replaced by common sense.

Are you calling racism against whites common sense?

Quote[/b] ]Why do you think ex-immigrants are STILL linked by their poor backgrounds - even four or five generations later?

I'm not sure, but why is it that my equally poor father's family, and other Ukranians escaping the Communists, succeeded shortly after arriving here?  Again, always investigate the causes behind the statistics.  A lot of immigrants arrive here with nothing but the cash in their pocket and end up making it.  The creater of Magna Corp. is just one example.

Besides, I'm still not convinced how it's fair that middle class and wealthy citizens who are more qualified should be denied jobs because you and other leftists believe they've had it easy their entire lives.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  If you want to make it, DO WHAT OTHERS DO AND WORK FOR IT!

 

[Mr_Eon]

First of all, I'd love for you to point me towards a post where I suggested that Affirmative Action should allow an unqualified applicant from a minority get a job they can't do. I'll be waiting awhile, I suspect.

As for my views - in some areas I AM considered a Conservative. I believe in tradition, I believe in maintaining a strong military, and using that military to further your international interests. I am a monarchist - within reasonable bounds, of course. I support the police in the excellent work they do, whilst believing that they need to do more, and better.

I believe in Law and Order.

Any of the above sound Liberal to you?

I am sorry that you can't see how Diversification is designed to shake up the strata in current business practice. I would have thought that it was rather self-evident for a man of your intelligence - in fact given your perception in other areas I can't help but interpret your obtuseness in this one as intransingence. Perhaps it helps explain when I say that AA shouldn't be limited to Racial Diversity, but should balance employment so that EVERYBODY is judged merely on their business qualifications.

No their race. Not who their father plays golf with.

I tell you that the business community is both conservative and rife with cronyism. I notice that your response is to ad hominem attack me, rather than to try to prove that either;

a. The business community is equally liberal.
b. That the business community does not suffer from cronyism.

That's a telling point, Tom. You know you've lost the argument when you find yourself neither advancing your own view, nor attacking your enemies - but trying to prove he is as bad as you are.

Eon

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, I'd love for you to point me towards a post where I suggested that Affirmative Action should allow an unqualified applicant from a minority get a job they can't do. I'll be waiting awhile, I suspect.

I never said it did, not did I insinuate it.  What it does do is, as you know, turn away qualified individuals because of their race.  Welcome to the quota system.

Quote[/b] ]Any of the above sound Liberal to you?

I don't think so.  Although since in pretty well every discussion we've had you've taken a liberal stance than you can see how I got that impression.  Cases in point: your support for AA, your belief that guns should be banned, and your believe that communism is superior to capitalism(more socialist than liberal, yes, but definitely not conservative).

Quote[/b] ]I am sorry that you can't see how Diversification is designed to shake up the strata in current business practice. I would have thought that it was rather self-evident for a man of your intelligence - in fact given your perception in other areas I can't help but interpret your obtuseness in this one as intransingence. Perhaps it helps explain when I say that AA shouldn't be limited to Racial Diversity, but should balance employment so that EVERYBODY is judged merely on their business qualifications.

Hey, I'm all for diversity!  A few of my best friends are Chinese, another few are Brown(East Indian), a few of them are Black, etc.  One of my cousins is Black for crying out loud!  You don't think I want to see them succeed?  I want them to succeed, but I want everyone judged to be equals and not given favortism for being a member of a particular race, or for being in a certain financial bracket.  If you're going to tell me that awarding 20 admission points for being a member of one of three races while only awarding 12 for a perfect SAT score is a good policy than I don't see any point in pursing this discussion.  Employment doesn't need force balancing, people not getting jobs need to work harder for them.  If they're working hard but not getting them because other people happen to be better for that particular job than what is the company supposed to do?  I've currently got a relatively high average for admission into university, I've won three school awards and finished with the top score in my school on a math contest, and I'm STILL going to have trouble getting into my top two choices!  Why?  They're world renown universities and a lot of people better qualified than me will probably grab the spots.  Sometimes there is just a better guy Eon.  I'd bet you that most of the people in my field (Engineering) are Chinese.  Should we have an AA program set up to restrict those deserving applicants because there are so many of them, or should we just tell everyone else to work harder so they can fight it out on equal ground, as I and other conservatives believe they should!

Quote[/b] ]No their race. Not who their father plays golf with.

Now I'm confused.  You want people to not be judged on their race, but you want AA to remain in place.  This is a contradiction.

Quote[/b] ]I tell you that the business community is both conservative and rife with cronyism. I notice that your response is to ad hominem attack me, rather than to try to prove that either;

a. The business community is equally liberal.
b. That the business community does not suffer from cronyism.

Actually, I was simply proving to you that your attack against conservatism was not correct.  If everyone does it, and you know liberals do it to, than why are you specifically firing at conservatives?  There is cronyism in the business world, as I acknowledged if you were paying attention, but you said it's a characteristic of conservatives and I simply stated that liberals will also do it.  You don't think they'd do it as a favour to an old friend?  Than you've got a lot to learn about people.

Case in point.  My last paying job was given to me because my dad was good friends with the supervisor(British guy, you'd like him...I did

).  What happened?  Well, I worked my butt off, and I was one of only three people who was called back to continue working for an extra couple of weeks out of the thirty or so that were there initially.  Was it Cronyism?  By definition it was, but when you consider that I was one of the better employees than who cares?  If I wasn't working hard enough than they would have laid me off.

Earn your keep, that's still my policy.

Quote[/b] ]That's a telling point, Tom. You know you've lost the argument when you find yourself neither advancing your own view, nor attacking your enemies - but trying to prove he is as bad as you are.

You know your case is failing when you take one response that was used to demonstrate a parallel between two groups of people and trying to pass it off as a sign of defeat.  You've contradicted your own viewpoint, you take heat of certain points when the fire is getting too hot, and you're trying to say that I've admitted defeat with a response to ONE point that we both know is absolutely true?

 

[Mr_Eon]

Hey kids, may I draw your attention to what happens if you don't take time to read everything properly before you answer a post from an intelligent debator.

You get your butt handed to you like I just did.

Sorry about that Tom, you deserved a far better response than you got - and you WILL get it, because I earnestly believe in my position, but it'll have to wait until I have the proper time to get it.

Otherwise you'll get some more half-baked crap like my last post... <blush>

made the post family friendly-CCGR

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry about that Tom, you deserved a far better response than you got - and you WILL get it, because I earnestly believe in my position, but it'll have to wait until I have the proper time to get it.

No problem man, it's cool.  I did kinda come off as a bit aggressive so sorry about that.

Bear in mind, I seldom agree with you, but I have a lot of respect for you, so don't take offense to my aggressive debating style heh.

Glad to see you can recognize when you've made a mistake, not a lot of people can do that.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Now hug and be friends and quit fighting, silly children.
What am I saying? Stop fighting? More debate! I'm all for it.
I said my piece up above, and I didn't see no one answer.