In fact, reading all the articles that you linked to The Ryan, it appears that you disregarded the context of each just to come up with a soundbite. The second-to-last article you linked to is arguing that the SATs are a bad tool in determining the intellect and merit of minority students, as is the final site you cited.
Oh, it’s the exchange we had in the 209 thread that, for me, highlights the humor inherent in your objection. And I don’t mind explaining the humor to those who might appreciate it, but of course for them I don’t have to, and for you, I won’t.
The reason I won’t explain it to you can best be presented in the form of an analagous situation:
[/quote]
Analogy
Once upon a time in a kingdom long ago there were a group of villagers who would often meet in the village square to talk about the issues pertaining to their village and their kingdom. One of these villagers, an angry man who believed strongly in his right to not care a fig for his fellow villagers, would listen to the informed discourse going on around him, and would sometimes find it entertaining to try and mimic the intelligent comments made by some. The others, of course, would listen politely, sometimes disagreeing, and sometimes pointing out the folly of the things the angry villager said. Often, after one of the intelligent villagers made a particularly telling point, the other villagers would share a good laugh; but the angry villager would never share in the laughter.
One day a child, observing that the angry villager never seemed to be able to share in the good humor, asked his father, “Why don’t you let Mr. Angry laugh with you?” His father replied “Oh son, that is good of you, but you see, the fool never understands his own folly.”
[/quote]
In the analogy, of course, you would be Mr. Angry. But don’t be upset! As we know, in any analogy the particulars aren’t important; it is only about the relationships. So please don’t complain that I’ve called you a fool. It was only an analogy.
The Ryan, this is an interesting point. I’ve encountered you in other threads and concluded you were racist but just not enlightened enough to realize it. I resigned myself to the fact that you think just because you are not (once again, an assumption) a member of the Klan or the NAAWP you think you are not racist.
But then you go and turn my little world upside down by suggesting that you may not approve of a company that excludes non-Whites from its hiring policies. Tell me what you think about the following scenario.
My name is Bob White. I own a company that designs brackets. My company is in Texas. I don’t want to hire non-Whites. I barely want to hire women but, hey, somebody’s gotta make the coffee. I don’t verbally express my views because those damn PC liberals will rake me over the coals.
I was recently awarded a DOD contract. My company is now growing; I’ve got three new openings: Inside Sales, Outside Sales and Secretarial. I place the appropriate ads in the local paper. The next day I start getting calls. If the caller ‘sounds Black’ I pretend to take their information and advise them that once I’ve reviewed all the applicants, I’ll be making calls for interviews. If the caller ‘sounds White’, I request that they forward me their resume and schedule and interview.
Inevitably, I did get a Black applicant who slipped through my ‘screening process’ and have granted him an interview. During the interview I don’t ask too many questions and focus mainly on educational and work experience I know they probably don’t have (it’s not listed on his resume). I politely inform him I’m really looking for someone with more experience in the areas I’ve mentioned. I even throw in a ‘Hey, feel free to apply when you get that Masters and 5 yrs experience in bracket sales!’
But what I don’t know is that the White guy I did eventually hire was a friend of the Black guy I turned down. Not only did he not have much less experience in bracket sales but he had no degree. I get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit a month later.
So, The Ryan, should Bob be allowed to run his business as he pleases? Should he not be sued? Should the Black gentleman who did not get the job just say to himself ‘Well, that’s Bob’s business and I shouldn’t interfere…’
Maybe your position is such that racial discrimination is wrong but the government should not step in. What do you propose as a deterrent, then? Please help me understand your position.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SterlingNorth *
If you had paid attention to the exchange between jb_farley and me, you would have realized that the schools I was talking about were colleges and universities. How can colleges be blamed for the qualifications of their applicants?
Just how is the beliefs of those that supply a statistic relevant to the statistic? I also found a site that argued that the IQ difference was due to inherent genetic differences. If I had quoted that site, would people have said “Gee, that site actually shows jb_farley et al. to be wrong”? I don’t think so. They would have just said “Hey, that site’s biased; their facts are right, but their interpretations are wrong”. There’s a double standard there.
What exchange? You mean this exchange:
x: In this case preferences and equal protection are the same. “Protection” is being used to mean equal consideration.
R: So you believe that equal protection is the same as preference, and protection is the same as preferences. So that means equal protection is the same as preferences.
x: You think that I think that preferences are the same as equal protection? Where did you get that idea?
I can see how this might be funny, but not at my expense.
In the example of Mr White he has discriminated an should be sued. However what if the applicants races are reversed. If Mr. White has a position and 2 applicants of different races. Since it is a government contract and he must show a commintment to diversity Mr White hires the less qualified minority applicant. The white applicant has been discriminated against. Should he sue?
JuanitaTech
This is a testament to liberals’ brainwashing efforts to convince everyone that anyone that does not agree with their solutions must not think that there is a problem. I’m sure similar tactics were used during the inquisition. “You oppose the arrest of Jews? You must be a Jew yourself!” I don’t think bigots should be arrested, but that doesn’t mean I’m a bigot.
First of all, it must be clarified that there are three quite distinct situations that are under discussion. First, there is the case where a company has a disparity between the percentage of whites at the company and the percentage of whites eligible to be at the company. There is no evidence of discrimination but this discrepancy. The following is jb_farley’s position, as I best understand it. I am not trying to create a straw man here; if this differs from what jb_farley believes, I welcome a correction.
In this situation it is irrelevant whether or not the owner actually chose to hire more whites. Blacks clearly suffer some disadvantage, and the owner is obligated to compensate for this disadvantage by preferring blacks overs whites until the discrepancy is corrected. For instance, if the company requires that employees have PhDs, and there are more whites because whites get more PhDs than blacks, then the universities are being unfair towards blacks by not giving them as many PhDs. By simply accepting this situation, the company is complicit in the university’s unfairness, and is itself being unfair to blacks.
In this case, I disagree with the premise that the company is doing anything wrong, and therefore do not believe that any action should be taken against it.
Then there is the case of a company that has accepted a government contract, but is discriminating against blacks. As I understand it, government contracts are contingent on the company having anti-discrimination contracts. Therefore, Mr. White is in breach of contract. Moreover, he is probably engaging in deceit to keep the government unaware of his discrimination, and is therfore guilty of fraud. He should be sued and possibly arrested.
Then there is the situation of a private company that has made no commitment to racial equity, and discriminates against blacks. In this case, I definitely do not approve of the company’s practices. However, I don’t believe that it is within the government’s jurisdiction to regulate this behavior. People have the right to do business, or refuse to do business, with whomever they want. To force someone to hire someone they don’t want to hire is a violation of civil liberties. The government should not be in the business of dictating personal morality. The proper response to private actions one does not approve of is private actions of one’s own: letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, etc.
Hmmm, no; I was talking about the actual exchange, not the pretend one. Fortunately, the thread will be on the SDMB a looong time, so a brief perusal of it yields something very close to this:
[/quote]
TR: Women and minorities aren’t asking for protection; they’re asking for special treatment.
x: In this case, TR, they’re the same. We’re talking about preferences given to other underrepresented groups that are denied to women and minorities; this is an example of unequal protection (or consideration) under the law.
TR: So… you’re saying special treatment is the same as consideration, and protection is equal consideration, so special treatment is the same as equal consideration! Are you insane?
x: Why, thanks for asking but no I am not insane. Are you hard of thinking? Here’s the logic I used: If B, first A; not A, therefore not B. Can you see the difference between that and A = B?
TR: No, I think because you said they’re same, you think they’re the same. Is there something wrong with that reasoning?
x: :rolleyes: I think you can’t possibly be this dense.
TR: <More of same.>
x: I’m done talking to you until you can come up with something worth replying to.
[/quote]
I see at least that you enjoyed my logic lesson enough to parrot it to jb_farley, so for that I guess I’m to blame. (Sorry jb.) But I wonder if you’ve learned anything else?
I’ll wait over here with the other villagers to find out.
“If B, first A; not A, therefore not B” may have been the logic you used to reach your conclusion, but your conclusion was that “in this case they are the same” i.e. A=B. What am I missing? You said that they are the same, therefore you believe they are the same. You keep saying that I’m missing something, but you refuse to state what it is. I really don’t what makes you think that “:rolleyes:” is a logical argument. If it is, then
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Oooh, look at my devastating attack of logic!
BTW, who are these “other villagers”? I haven’t seen anyone else expressing mirth at me for that exchange.
BTW, who are these “other villagers”? I haven’t seen anyone else expressing mirth at me for that exchange.
I admit to not reading all the above posts because they were making my head spin with who said what and what did it mean and i didn’t mean what you sais I meant.
I don’t know if this will help get back to the OP or not.
But I heard a campaign speech by Al Gore were he said EVERY American should have a Bachelor’s degree. Excuse me?
Wasn’t the purpose of getting a B.S. or B.A. degree to set yourself apart and above those that did not? To obtain better employment with education.
If everybody should be entitled to one now, why did I (and all lot of other SDMBs, I’m sure) bust our ass for one years ago?
I know minorities are fucked over, but lowering standards to allow everbody in isn’t the answer. Denying minorities the opportunities to participate is wrong, but a standard of mastery should be established for all. EVERYBODY should have to complete the degree requirements in order to earn it.
Isn’t the point of AA to allow the Opportunity, and not the Prize to be handed out to whoever applies?
After Gore’s speech, I was like, what good is a Bachelor’s degree if everyone has one? I’m forced to go to grad school to seperate myself from the masses and prove I have something more than someone with a Bachelor’s degree.
And of course, once most people have graduate degrees, people will be clamoring for everyone to have one too.
<sigh>
The humor lies not in our 209 exchange, but in your subsequent whining at jb_farley, complaining that his oversimplification of your “burning down churches” analogy ignored your intent and was a dishonest debating tactic.
Now, with your objection coming so soon after your witless misrepresentation of my remarks, I could’ve found your protest objectionable enough to start a 'Pit thread examining the type of hypocrisy and low moral character one must have to be so mendacious. Instead, I allowed the pathetic weakness of your position to overwhelm me with its hilarity. Kinda like watching a bully cry when he loses the lunch money he just stole.
Back to the OP:
Found any mention of quotas yet in Executive Order 11246, or in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Remember, just calling remedial attempts “quotas” doesn’t cut it.
As a matter of fact, Affirmative Action calls for “goals to reduce or overcome the under-utilization” of women and minorities, with good faith efforts to include “expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training and other activities to increase the pool of qualified minorities and females.” (Emphasis added.)
The Order states: “The actual selection decision is to be made on a non-discriminatory basis.” Translation for the cognitively impaired: this means employers are told specifically NOT to hire underqualified applicants to meet their diversity goals.
Was there anything unclear about that, The Ryan?
Are you saying that you think that the statement “oh, and comparing hiring the first black executive a company has had to burning a white church” is a legitimate summary of my position?
How is saying that you think that two things are the same, when you said that they were the same, a misrepresentation? I have gone out of my way to explain to jb_farley how his summary is widely inaccurate; all you’ve given me is some irrelevant logic statements.
Even if I somehow misunderstood your position, pointing out that someone else misunderstood my position is hardly hypocritical, any more than pointing out that someone else’s shoes are untied is hypocritical simply because one’s one shoes were at some point untied.
You considered posting a Pit thread, but instead decided to bring our disagreement from that thread into this thread? Your cowardice is telling. You want to start a Pit thread? Go ahead. I’d appreciate the opportunity to properly humiliate you.
The sheer naivity that would make you think that this is relevant is mindblowing. If I were to produce an Executive Order dating from 1920 banning lynching, would you conclude that there were no lynchings after 1920? Affirmative Action programs do discriminate. That is a fact. You can produce all the pieces of paper saying that they’re not “supposed” to that you want, that won’t change the fact that they do.
Nah, let’s keep it here. I’d hate to be further humiliated by such stinging rebukes as “xeno say this mean that, but this different from that! xeno stoopid! Yuk yuk.”
Gee, this must be your thread for incredibly maladroit analogies. (You should try your hand at metaphor instead; you couldn’t do any worse.) The sheer gall that would make you deny the relevance of a statement banning discriminatory selection in an Executive Order you are criticizing for setting up discriminatory selections is mindblowing.
BTW, unless you just want to spread the battle front out, which I can certainly handle, why don’t you join us over at puddleglum’s How affirmative action hurts race relations, which actally attempts (however feebly) to attack AA on grounds of its effectiveness.
Then why did you change the words?
No, you didn’t say “groups” you said “classes”, which I explained multiple times are different terms. If you had origninally said “groups”, I would have said what I am saying now: you are full of shit! There are no preferences which are denied to women and minorities, but given to other groups. Why are you complaining about me misrepresenting your position, when even you can’t quote yourself properly?
Just what similarity do you see betwen my logic lessons are yours?
When did I ever criticize the Executive Order?
It’s called p-a-r-a-p-h-r-a-s-i-n-g. That’s a big word that means “saying the same thing in different words.” It’s used when the writer intends to briefly convey the meaning of a statement or exchange without repeating it verbatim (word for word).
I don’t think any comment I could make here could possibly be as humorous as your question. (Sometimes self-parody is the best parody.)
Freudian much?
[whisper]pssst! We’re talking about the Executive Order that established Affirmative Action.[/whisper] Pay attention much?
Seeing as how I made such a big deal about the difference between “gruop” and “class”, it should be obvious to even the most simple observer that I do not consider them to be “saying the same thing”.
[/quote]
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Since I have criticized AA, and all AA derives its power from a single Executive Order, by being against AA, I am being against that EO? Is this what you’re saying? If not, what are you saying?