Affirmative Action

It's not about your opinion Noah. I'm talking about personality and style.

Things like level of coherence and excitability.

I wish you could discuss this without emotions. Like me! I have no emotions.

That you can't makes me very very sad. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

PS You can say I mixed up your arguments in my last post but you can't demonstrate it.

It's another meaningless claim. Kinda like the whole pin a fallacy thing you tried.

G'night Noah.

0 Replies

I know a fella called Sisyphus with a wheel he'd like to sell.....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I know a fella called Sisyphus with a wheel he'd like to sell.....

Sometimes, I'm working with that chap --- or one of his brothers Laughing

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

PS You can say I mixed up your arguments in my last post but you can't demonstrate it.

It's another meaningless claim. Kinda like the whole pin a fallacy thing you tried.

Been there and done that and, of course you've avoid it as usual.
You are sooooo into projecting your faults.... I guess I should keep it real short then maybe you can't say you missed something.

Nevertheless the proof is well demonstrated in your mind because you know your are the defeated dishonest kind, Mr. Craven YouDoItToo!

0 Replies

is good old SISYPHUS still alive ? our highschool classroom-teacher was a great one for bringing him into classroom discussions - we just loved good old SISYPHUS ! give him my regards ! hbg.

0 Replies

don't you think affirmative action would make more sense now if it were based on socioeconomic class rather than race?

Does it make sense that a rich black kid who grew up in the suburbs who didn't work as hard or do as well get the nod over a poor white kid in the ghetto who went to a gang infested school, had to work 20 hours a week and still managed to get better grades? Why should the white kid be punished for a crime he never commited, and the black kid rewarded for a crime he never suffered from.

I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class. This is what Dean argued for in 96 I believe to much controversy, and he never let up despite the unpopularity of the stance.. Part of the reason I like the guy.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

is good old SISYPHUS still alive ? our highschool classroom-teacher was a great one for bringing him into classroom discussions - we just loved good old SISYPHUS ! give him my regards ! hbg.

Same here! Additionally, there was his cousin ... si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses ... :wink:

0 Replies

walter : greetings to him also ! hbg

0 Replies

Centroles' quote, "I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class." I totally agree.

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Been there and done that and, of course you've avoid it as usual.
You are sooooo into projecting your faults.... I guess I should keep it real short then maybe you can't say you missed something.

Actually you did not. You just went into a hysterical rant ending with some very weird "Daddy Mack" routine. <shrugs>

Quote:

Nevertheless the proof is well demonstrated in your mind because you know your are the defeated dishonest kind, Mr. Craven YouDoItToo!

Come now Noah, what's with the bad poetry and silly claims? Doing it immediately after being foiled in an attamept to pin a fallacy is way too obvious.

Like I said the last time, at least include an argument in the tantrums.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

don't you think affirmative action would make more sense now if it were based on socioeconomic class rather than race?

Does it make sense that a rich black kid who grew up in the suburbs who didn't work as hard or do as well get the nod over a poor white kid in the ghetto who went to a gang infested school, had to work 20 hours a week and still managed to get better grades? Why should the white kid be punished for a crime he never commited, and the black kid rewarded for a crime he never suffered from.

I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class. This is what Dean argued for in 96 I believe to much controversy, and he never let up despite the unpopularity of the stance.. Part of the reason I like the guy.

It's funny how you answer your own question...

It's also funny how you base this all on a hypothetical and a skewed one at that. It's also funny how you and so many others pretend that socio-economic status is not already a consideration at colleges. Well, if you go by the much publicized U of M case, socio-economic status was part of the equation. And I'm pretty sure it is and has been for years at colleges. I remember it vividly... So your question is moot! (Though I can acknowledge and agree perhaps that more could be shoould be done.)

But I guess people would rather act like they can't see what's clearly in front of them in order to promote and agenda. It's also funny how when affirmative action is supposedly attacked in terms of merit or who is more "deserving" [Note: Being poor doesn't show academic merit though it may represent a "compelling" state/social interest to elevate lower economic classes.] but other programs, of course, legacies being one of them hardly get the ridiculous heavily skewed hypothetical treatment attacking them.

The agenda then is so clear. It's not about what is "right" or even real... Like I said schools already take socio-economics into account so what's your point besides a thinly veiled attack at what you think affirmative action is all about. Nevermind that white women and even white men (when it comes to employment - veterans benefits or points, etc.) have been the primary beneficiaries of the policy philosophy.

[I say philosophy because I think you would be hard pressed to identify particular individuals who solely benefited from so-called affirmative action alone. Again, schools already take and have taken socio-economics into the equation.... as well as first generation this and that.... So you wouldn't be able to tell since schools incorporate more than a simple look at a potential student grades when they apply. They look at the whole person and their circumstances. Now if you want to argue that schools need to expand opportunities to include more 'poor' kids then of course they could always stand to do more.]

What is so missing here is the animosity towards plus factors that disproportionately benefit rich white kids. There are plenty of them. Our president is a prime example of one mediocre student who, if you follow the affirmative action haters logic, took a more deserving kids spot. But I guess that's no different than the workplace cries about affirmative action were nepotism and cronyism are accepted regardless of the lesser qualifications of the bosses brother's nephew. It happens all the time, and while people definitely talk about it and don't like it, there has never been a national merit movement to eliminate hiring within the family (however distant) and within a buddy system, something that gives rise to the need for affirmative action in the first place.

Affirmative action on the other hand is always assumed to reflect lower qualifications (I guess no black person can be qualified, huh?)

That right there shows the bias within those who assail affirmative action. And honestly, as a black person, I don't think too much of it myself but for very different reasons. This shows just how petty or rather lacking in principle the objections to affirmative action are.

But since we want to be fair then let's extend that at every level and make sure nobody has an unfair advantage or is unfairly disadvantaged due to circumstances beyond their control (like skin color and now socio-economic status). I propose something I just heard from a political science professor, Peter Irons. A Thurgood Marshall plan of say $87 billion dollars earmarked to the 50 largest (and poorest) city school districts.

How bout it! Let's help the poor! From K-12 then from there on!
How bout a little socio-economic affirmative action there! :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually you did not. You just went into a hysterical rant ending with some very weird "Daddy Mack" routine.

It's awfully funny it took your slow brain self to come up with this "No You Didn't" routine so late in the "game".

I do remember you first complaint was ... "You are so low... You add that stuff to your post!" (READ: I don't have a comeback to that so that's I have to manufacture an issue.)

So, I'm impressed by the warp speed of your fabricating imagination, Mr. Milk & Cooooooookies! Embarrassed

(And I'm not hysterical, I'm hilarious.... as in laughing too hard about how sllllllllllloooooooooowwwww you are. But some of us are like that. It's not really bad!)

0 Replies

I think the hillarity is imagined. But really, if you can't include some arguments in your posts and have really been reduced to empty taunting then you'll have to speak of me in absentia.

I don't mind it at all as long as there are some arguments to address as well. But without them it's just lame attempts to be funny/insulting and is boring.

So in all the hystera, please toss in an argument to carp. If not, well, have fun with the imagined hillarity and perhaps we'll run into each other later on.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't mind it at all as long as there are some arguments to address as well. But without them it's just lame attempts to be funny/insulting and is boring.

You are very perceptive, Craven. My "taunting" you is a sure sign of boredom - mine. I'm bored of your D&I tactics - Distort & Ignore.

Everything you have posed in your "arguments" (the most recent ones) I have already dealt with. The burden of proof is on you. You have not shown were I have said anything that you have asserted. So what is left for me to do? I'm not going to constantly go round and round with you on stuff that you purposely distort and ignore.

Quote:

Also, if I respond to your Fallacious Appeal To Popularity by (staying within the context - Reparations) frankly exposing it for the shallow and false assertion that it was.... that response is not a fallacy but rather a repudiation of your lame assertion. So, if you say "most of them" [blacks] make more sense than I do and you thank goodness that I do not "represent" blacks then you and I both know your attempt is to promote the idea that "most of them" [blacks] do not think like I do and by extention don't support reparations.

Since I have to quote an old argument since you have raised nothing new but finally found a way to explain away your incoherence, I will say that is simply the stupidest claim to say you didn't say things in exact terms as a way to claim innocence.

If, "most of them" [black] people don't think like I do... Then how do I think?

You didn't say that either - the same way you claim that you didn't make any (explicit) conclusions by statements like - but I guess since "the way I think" is some unconcluded value then, huh?

You attempts to compartmentalize and segregate your own thoughts is futile. The English language is replete with implied meanings and methods of implying things that aren't explicitly stated.

So, since you made no conclusion or no stipulation as to how I think or rather failed to say how my thoughts or exactly what thoughts of mine where less "sensical" than "them" blacks you know, we are left with the ambiguous and virtually undetermined idea if we go by you reasoning that a conclusion and elements that support it must be explicitly stated.

So, Craven, in this great tooth pulling exercise which is debating or discussing with you.... upon what basis do you claim my views are less "sensical" than "most of them" [blacks] you know?

[Notice, again, it is you who frame things in the less than - greater than type of continuum, not me.]

Since we're looking for explicit statements or conclusion cite where it was where I said my views [on reparations] were "more" relevant than yours?

I ask not because I care... I'm so bored with your not-so-clever avoidances... but to give you something to respond to so you can't stop crying about being taunted. If took your butt whuppin' like a man we could avoid all of this. But since I like to type... I'd like to see you respond to this though by the type of responses you have made so far I have to admit I have a waning interest to even so what new [un]creative way you try to weasel out of it.

Prove what you have said.... before thinking you can demand someone demonstrate something to you.

Where did I say, my view was more relevant and don't forget the context. A simple quote would do. A quote that says or establishes at least in part what you are lamingly claiming.

0 Replies

Craven, to be sure, I have had to entertain myself because the Re-Runs of your Sit-Coms are get old and stale. So my imagination and the hillarity of it as all for my own benefit since you have even failed to continue to entertain me at the same level.

It's like a drug addiction. Your gateway drug of hilariously ridiculous post left me fienin' for more comedy so I had to make my own.

Please try to show some Intellectual Honesty then we can pickup on a real discussion.

(But I told ya.... I'm willing to debate on any level. So since you continue to engage is slap-stick... I figured I'd throw in a one-liner or two myself... can't help it. I like to laugh! Laughing

)

Again, (substance-argument time), cite where I said my opinion on reparations is "more" relevant than yours?

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

upon what basis do you claim my views are less "sensical" than "most of them" [blacks] you know?

Simply on the basis that they are coherent.

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

If took your butt whuppin' like a man we could avoid all of this.

Please thank "If" for taking the imaginary "butt whuppin'". Laughing

You seem obsessed with my butt Noah. ;-)

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

A quote that says or establishes at least in part what you are lamingly claiming.

Lamingly? Perhaps you meant "lamely"?

You ask me to "prove what you have said". Frankly my opinion on your inability to make sense is merely that, an opinion and I can't "proove" to you that I think you make little sense.

If you do not believe that I think your posts don't make much sense that's fine with me Noah. Believe what you will. If you want to think that I find your convoluted sentences and absense of logic coherent feel free to entertain that illusion. Laughing

I won't try to convince you that I find it nonsensical.

Now this isn't an excuse to fail to demonstrate claims you make on logical grounds (logic is not a mere opinion, so it can be demonstrated).

Frankly, I don't mind if you are unable to demonstrate the logical fallacies you read about and tried to apply to me. I knew that already. This is one of the problems with trying to use terms for logical fallacies without understanding them and their application. <shrugs>

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Please try to show some Intellectual Honesty then we can pickup on a real discussion.

Noah you made huge rants about how you didn't want to discuss serious topics with me.

If you want to talk about something serious start a discussion and I'll join if I have something I want to say. <shrugs>

Quote:

But I told ya.... I'm willing to debate on any level.

Unfortunately willing Not Equal

ability

0 Replies

Because you are so slow I will help answer that question. Notice, first, that this post is from Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:05 pm / Post: 534023. - well after you made your baseless claims without *context*, the word you love to hate, (your claims date back to Friday if not Thursday) and notice the obvious explanation of the obvious within the CONTEXT of what is being said.

Tell me if the reasoning is somehow not sound in your view...
(I don't know why I should have to break it down to you in such elementary terms.... I'm the one who's suppose to be credited with "at least elementary intelligence".... seems that perhaps you projected that too!)

[quote][6] I believe my opinion and views are irrelevant to you. I believe you have a - rational(e) - basis for what you assert for reasons that make sense to you. I do think your opinion is relevant to those who are inclined to think like you or who have the same rationale or reasons to believe and see the world as you do on this issue. Your position may also be relevant to someone inclined to support it or undecided about it if you are able to speak to something that resonates with them - emotional or rational(e) appeals - on whatever level they are on.

I do, again, feel those rationales and reasonings are irrelevant to me because they all rest on a different if not opposing worldview and do not resonate with me, they don't appeal to me - emotionally or rationally - and I dare say with anyone else particularly someone BLACK, who FAVORS REPARATIONS.[/quote]

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:
upon what basis do you claim my views are less "sensical" than "most of them" [blacks] you know?

Simply on the basis that they are coherent.

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:
If took your butt whuppin' like a man we could avoid all of this.

Please thank "If" for taking the imaginary "butt whuppin'".

You seem obsessed with my butt Noah. ;-)

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:
A quote that says or establishes at least in part what you are lamingly claiming.

Lamingly? Perhaps you meant "lamely"?

You ask me to "prove what you have said". Frankly my opinion on your inability to make sense is merely that, an opinion and I can't "proove" to you that I think you make little sense.

If you do not believe that I think your posts don't make much sense that's fine with me Noah. Believe what you will. If you want to think that I find your convoluted sentences and absense of logic coherent feel free to entertain that illusion. I won't try to convince you that I find it nonsensical.

Now this isn't an excuse to fail to demonstrate claims you make on logical grounds (logic is not a mere opinion, so it can be demonstrated).

Frankly, I don't mind if you are unable to demonstrate the logical fallacies you read about and tried to apply to me. I knew that already. This is one of the problems with trying to use terms for logical fallacies without understanding them and their application. <shrugs>

Excuses... excuses....

and Selective reading on you part....
Your Blu-Blockers are at it again! I guess bold print and questions repeated more than once are hard for you to see?

(I intentionally said "lamingly" because your creative and selective arguments deserve the same amount of creativity. Do try to find real issues to focus on and stop making excuses for your inadequacies. I'm in full command of the words I speak.... and if you weren't 'laming' with the stuff you are claiming then I would not even have to use such words.)

Damn!!! Why is it that every poster like you build themselves up to be so much when the are so little? I can't get a good debate anywhere! Guess I'll have to keep lookin' cause you, Craven, have been a poor excuse for one.

See ya!

0 Replies

Affirmative Action

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know