I’m not sure what you mean here. I think people were against the quotas that were the result of a consent decree (which is sort of like a settlement). A socioeconomic based preference is not racist, the government has many long standing programs that are means tested or means preferenced.
Missing the point again, they are also pointed at to show that no, not all do think like you and more importantly they are and were involved before in passing laws in the past that benefited Asians before. The other point stands, you are still going for the Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I never claimed that there is unanimity among all asians. This is clearly not true. You were the one that tried to use CAA to prove that asians generally supported affirmative action. This is also clearly not true.
How am I using argumentum as populum? Do you understand what argumentum ad populum is?
Argumentum ad populum is the notion that you can’t point to evidence that most people agree with you to prove that you are correct. But you CAN use evidence that most people agree with me to prove that most people actually agree with me.
Not really, you are ignoring that the overall point I made was that the Asians that support weak affirmative action do so because they are experienced with the issue or experts on the matter.
You are going for the equivalent of using the majority view as if that shows that there is no further need to check if a solution is a valid one. There are more people that support creationism among Christians, but that does not make it the best idea to counter evolution in an educational setting.
What experts? Kat Chow? The student writing for her school newspaper? The CAA?
What makes any of them more expert than the anti-AA groups and people?
I don’t know what you are talking about. Perhaps my reading comprehension is insufficient. Can you expand on that and tell me what it is you think I said and how that leads you to the statement you just made?
Where do I say aa is unpopular so it is therefore wrong. I think aa ( as it is practiced today) is wrong regardless of how popular it is.
I’m not sure if that fallacy applies in the context of democracy making decisions.
As other school items like the teaching of evolution and climate science shows, what is taught in science classes should not depend on what most people think in some regions of the USA.
Science teachers recognize that evolution and climate change are widely misunderstood or rejected in many places.
Teaching these topics without specific training is challenging. Many teachers avoid these well-established yet culturally controversial areas of science to avoid conflict.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. How did evolution enter this debate. I am having trouble following your train of thought.
So, democracy is only allowable when it generates the outcome you desire? Who dictates who and what is allowable in a democracy?
That is an ignorant thing to say, it is not only me the one who “dictates” that. The point that you miss is that those popular items are trying to be applied in educational settings by ignorant powerful interests, as the courts showed many times too, the imposition of dogmas in the classroom is one item where popularity really should not rule so as to have progress.
Of course this might change with the current make up of the supreme court, meaning that one can expect dictated ignorance to succeed in the future.
How do you feel about schools mandating teaching CRT in the classroom?
To begin with, based on what I found in other discussions and searches, CRT is not prominent in colleges, it is becoming an important framework, the works the proponents make are supported or fail just as in other ways of doing research.
In other threads I found that one reason for your question was not really that CRT was added to the curriculum of a school, but that one book by a CRT proponent was added as part of a class that also included other points of view. That was for schools, in colleges I have seen that the framework is added in several schools but it is not the only one used. What is clear to me is that a lot of what the right calls CRT is not it. In a lot of past discussions some posters made it look as if CRT was replacing other frameworks but that is wrong too. The demonization of a framework so as to not look at what the ones that follow it are publishing or researching, is done just as a way to scare the ignorant.
Can we do this without calling other people ignorant? I thought you were already cautioned about this?
The point remains that you cannot apply that fallacy to democratic votes.
Point missed then, I was talking about why the appeal to the popular remains a fallacy. A policy can be wrong even if millions support it.
Modnote: @GIGObuster calling another post ignorant is violating the don’t insult others rule. You need to stop. I’m not giving you a warning, but this one is generating a user note so it is effectively going on your user record and will be remembered.
You have to avoid insulting others.
I don’t recall saying otherwise. Did anyone say that aa is wrong because it is unpopular? I am pretty sure I have tried to argue against aa on principle.
That was done many times, regarding the subject of this thread, more than once there were arguments to dismiss what others are reporting about the issue because the popular vote in 2020 was not in their favor.
I do not deny the current popular sentiment, only to notice that the proposition that ended AA in California was helped thanks to the college administrators that also supported the end of affirmative action and then the 209 proposition passed. But, after several years of that, most of those administrators are now in favor of using affirmative action again and supported proposition 16. Mind you, that change of mind has happened just recently and the point for me is that just one election after that change is not the end of it.
Can you point it out?
There have been 3 referendums over 25 years and they all have had similar results. Pointing out that aa failed in california as evidence that aa is not actually popular is not the same as saying that aa is bad policy because it is not popular.
I argue that aa as it is practiced today is bad policy, not because it is unpopular but because the cost outweighs the benefits. YMMV.