Thank you for the link. I trust you have read the dissents? I think you should do so before taking this debate any further.
Daniel
I read the whole thing (opinion, concurrences, and dissents). I find it difficult to debate these topics properly without doing so.
No, you didn’t demonstrate jack shit, you blithering idiot. All you demonstrated was that a specific civil rights leader supported giving preferential treatment to blacks.
I didn’t see any quote where Dr. King said, “I am advocating for inequality in favor of blacks, not equality.” Or, “I’d love it if there were programs that gave us unequal treatment and also treated Asians and Native Americans unequally as well, all for the advancement of my people.”
No, all he said was that he supported the idea of certain preferential treatment. Unless you’re brain dead there’s no way you can sit here and claim that this is proof that I was engaging in historical revisionism when I said the Civil Rights movement was about equality. The idea behind Affirmative Action was that it gave preferential treatment as a means to an end, as a way of eventually bringing about equality. The goal of the movement was ALWAYS equal treatment. You trying to say otherwise makes you insufferably stupid.
Here’s another quote from Dr. King:
And:
And:
And:
So yeah, two can play at the “appeal to authority” game, and you have been found lacking even at that.
John, I confess that I have not yet read the Chief Justice’s opinion or the dissents. I will never understand the finer points of the law, I’m sure.
And they will never know what it is like to spend twenty years teaching inside classrooms that have bomb threats, parents protesting outside, and reporters and cameras inside – and watching some really cool things happen over a generation.
The landmark case that I was referring to is Brown v. Board of Ed… Why was it right for only fifty-something years?
Thanks for answering my question about where you are from, John. You are very open. And I was wondering if your geographical location had affected your thinking about diversification. (That may have been my own biases at work.)
Martin Hyde, no offense, but I wish you would stop talking about the Civil Rights movement as if it were a thing of the past.
Hippy, I would love to be in your classroom! Happy Independence Day!
Quoting a historical figure about the content of a historical movement he led is not an appeal to authority.
You’re assuming that the word “equality” in your quotes meant color-blind treatment. Since, Daniel’s claim is that race-preferential treatment was intended as a road to equality, it is not refuted by talking about goals of equality. Instead, you would need to show that the leaders of the movement intended to use only color-blind means of achieving equality.
To make both of these errors while attempting to demonstrate his idiocy has rather the opposite effect.
*Brown *just said that you couldn’t legislate segregation. It didn’t say that you could legislate integration. Later court cases said you could do that as long as the legislative effects of segregation were still apparent. That was not the case in either of these two school systems.
At this point, I guess we’re just going to have agree to disagree on the subject. But the school systems have an easy out. All they have to do is remove the numerical balancing system and replace it with something more comprehensive than simply black and white. The decision in the two U of Michigan cases (decided before Roberts and Alito joined the bench) illustrated that clearly.
Yes, it is exactly an appeal to authority. Martin Luther King no more lead the civil rights movement than did Thurgood Marshall, Medgar Evers, Jesse Jackson, or Malcolm X. The Civil Rights movement was not a centrally lead and organized movement. Quoting Dr. King served no purpose other than someone expected by simply quoting him it “settled” what the Civil Rights movement was about.
If you actually read my quotes you’d realize I didn’t assume they meant color-blind treatment, they actually say that. The quotes are all from the same speech, in the same speech where Dr. King talks about wanting equality he talks about his dream of a society in which his children are judged not by the color of their skin but by their character if that isn’t explicitly saying he’s talking about color-blind treatment, I don’t know what is. That doesn’t necessarily conflict with the idea of using temporary programs in order to correct past inequalities. However, all that I said was this, “The Civil Rights movement was about equality, not preferential treatment.” What a movement is fundamentally about isn’t undermined simply because some leaders of the movement might view certain inequal acts (like preferential treatment) as a means to an end the desired end was always equality and the idea that I was engaging in historical revisionism by saying that the desired end of the Civil Rights movement was equality is so unimaginably stupid I find it difficult to even respond to it with anything more than an outright dismissal.
But why limit ourselves to discussion about Dr. King. Look at this NAACP brief from a little SCOTUS case called Brown v. Board of Education, written by Thurgood Marshall:
You can go fuck yourself, too. Oh, and have a nice day.
Thanks for your pointless anecdotal experiences, ultimately they mean nothing. The SCOTUS isn’t governed by the anecdotal experiences of one person.
As Chief Justice Roberts said in his opinion, the school districts in question here offered no evidence that simply by divvying up students based on their arbitrary race has provided any of the benefits they assert exist because of diversity. Justice Clarence Thomas referred to the ideas as “faddish social theories” and said people should beware legislating such things into being.
There’s no evidence, aside from anecdotal evidence such as yours that these programs actually promote diversity or increase educational quality. The idea that you can use blacks and Hispanics like pepper or some other spice to “enrich” the school body is both insulting and with no basis in actual factual reality. The idea that one individual black student provides more diversity than one individual white student is offensive, what if that white student was a recent immigrant from Russia, or Finland? Wouldn’t that student probably provide a lot more diversity than a black kid from America who has never left the country or experienced another society/culture than the one he currently lives in?
As I quoted above, here is what Thurgood Marshall said in his brief concerning Brown back when he argued the case itself:
I find it upsetting people are so materially uninformed about what Brown actually said. All of this bullshit started in 1978, two decades after Brown in the Bakke case.
Your argument that other people, and even Dr. King, expressed different ideas does not mean that quoting him is an appeal to authority. Looking to primary evidence from a historical period is not fallacious, it is the preferred way to document history.
It’s really neither here nor there, I’ve just seen a lot of mis-use of logical fallacies lately on the board. Since you mis-used it while calling someone else an idiot, I thought it was worth pointing out.
Even if King was talking about a time in which the *law *was color-blind (and I don’t see why you assume that), he certainly was not saying that the short-term approach must be color-blind, which is what Daniel said.
There is a legitimate debate over whether the 14th amendment, and the Civil Rights movement, were about anti-classification (color-blind law) or anti-subordination (anti-racist law). But you make yourself look silly by saying that the movement is clearly about color-blind equality. The movement has contained both currents of thought since the 14th amendment itself, with the anti-subordination camp waning, and the anti-classification camp waxing (culminating in the latest decision).