Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Tony said:
The motive is still race based bigotry.
(ARe "Billy Bobs" really named "Billy Bob" I figured that was mostly nicknames rather than official birth certificate names. Ive never met a Billy Bob. Ive met a Bubba but that wasnt his real name.)
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Tmy said:
We scientific types have a couple of ways of getting around this. First of all, it is common scientific practice to refer to authors in references only with first and (optional) second initial and last name. When papers are put up for review by peers, all names and identifying features are removed.
Of course, this is one of the reasons that business people hold us in such utter contempt. We really hate prejudice. Most people like it. Even most of those who claim that they're opposed to prejudice really think it's just peachy but just would like it more if some of the signs were changed.
It would be perfectly effective and cost almost nothing for the government to require a similar system. But that doesn't happen, because people don't want it. They like racism, whether it is traditional racism or neo-racism based on affirmative action.
And, frankly, some of them will admit it. We scientific types aren't interested in doing social engineering, but a lot of people are. It may be based on questionable premises, but that's the way it is. Business is, ultimately, not about maximizing profits or efficiency or whatever it is they say because it sounds good. It's about implementing a chimpanzee troop.
The equal protection clause still only applies to the government, institutions often devide how they recieve governement funds. The EPC still does not apply to private institutions, so that lowers you to the dumb bunny level..
Uh, you don't know even the basic facts. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate discrimination case at U of M, the USSC held the point system then in effect unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This debate is pretty much over your head, Dancing David, so why don't you hip hop and shake your booty right on outta here?
Uh, you don't know even the basic facts. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate discrimination case at U of M, the USSC held the point system then in effect unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This debate is pretty much over your head, Dancing David, so why don't you hip hop and shake your booty right on outta here?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Patrick said:The equal protection clause still only applies to the government, institutions often devide how they recieve governement funds. The EPC still does not apply to private institutions, so that lowers you to the dumb bunny level..
Uh, you don't know even the basic facts. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate discrimination case at U of M, the USSC held the point system then in effect unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This debate is pretty much over your head, Dancing David, so why don't you hip hop and shake your booty right on outta here?
Your words condemn you as worse than a palooka , you are a provincial lout, while you discuss the undergraduate admissions and Gratz v. Bollinger, I was making reference to the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which the SCOTUS did allow for the point based admisssions to Law School for people who were going to become lawyers.
So I was commenting outside your use of the word undergraduate in the OP to make reference to Grutter v. Bollinger, while you keep your focus on Gratz.
BTW, I ain't no boogie man, but a country dancer, we don't shake our booties, that would go against the traditional of Traditional White People Dancing, where the carriage is always to be painfuly proper.
Patrick you could be intelligent if only you used your powers for good.
So keep focusing on the trivial talking points that you get off of FOX news and don't learn to think for yourself, lout you are and lout you shall stay.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,611
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
No, the original complaint of the thread? The originator seems to be implying that companies that are proud of diversity are racist in some way, shape or form.
billydkid said:
No, the original complaint of the thread? The originator seems to be implying that companies that are proud of diversity are racist in some way, shape or form.
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
No, the debate is whether or not judging candidates for positions on anything other than their individual merits such as sex, sexual orientation and race is discriminatory. The issue has never been whether or not diversity is a good thing. I would suggest that there is not a single person in here who is against diversity per se'. The issue the manner in which that diversity is arrived at - whether it occurs as a natural outcome of not discrimating on the basis of attributes such as race or gender as opposed to consciously factoring in those sorts of things in your evaluation of a candidate.
I would hold that taking those things into account is racist and sexist and so on. I would hold that judging people on anything other than "the content of their character" is racist and sexist, etc. Apparently you believe this is a racist point of view. If that is the case then I consider myself in good company with other racists such as MLK. None of this is difficult to comprehend.
thaiboxerken said:
No, the debate is whether or not judging candidates for positions on anything other than their individual merits such as sex, sexual orientation and race is discriminatory. The issue has never been whether or not diversity is a good thing. I would suggest that there is not a single person in here who is against diversity per se'. The issue the manner in which that diversity is arrived at - whether it occurs as a natural outcome of not discrimating on the basis of attributes such as race or gender as opposed to consciously factoring in those sorts of things in your evaluation of a candidate.
I would hold that taking those things into account is racist and sexist and so on. I would hold that judging people on anything other than "the content of their character" is racist and sexist, etc. Apparently you believe this is a racist point of view. If that is the case then I consider myself in good company with other racists such as MLK. None of this is difficult to comprehend.
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
And by the way, I am open minded enough to consider that you were overwrought when you slandered and insulted me. I would expect, however, after having had some time to consider your baseless remarks you would be adult enough to admit your mistake and to apologize. Allowing an unwarranted personal attack like that to stand without an apology is truly bad form. Your behavior in this regard very much resembles that of the woo woos you very much enjoy baiting. If an apology is not forthcoming you may well consider that you have made a permanent enemy in this forum.
thaiboxerken said:
And by the way, I am open minded enough to consider that you were overwrought when you slandered and insulted me. I would expect, however, after having had some time to consider your baseless remarks you would be adult enough to admit your mistake and to apologize. Allowing an unwarranted personal attack like that to stand without an apology is truly bad form. Your behavior in this regard very much resembles that of the woo woos you very much enjoy baiting. If an apology is not forthcoming you may well consider that you have made a permanent enemy in this forum.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,611
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
No, the debate is whether or not judging candidates for positions on anything other than their individual merits such as sex, sexual orientation and race is discriminatory.
I don't think anyone is debating that. I think most of us agree that judging on sex, sex orientation and race IS discriminatory.
The issue the manner in which that diversity is arrived at - whether it occurs as a natural outcome of not discrimating on the basis of attributes such as race or gender as opposed to consciously factoring in those sorts of things in your evaluation of a candidate.
I doubt that this is the issue. The originating poster suggests that companies that have a diversity statement are being racist.
No, the debate is whether or not judging candidates for positions on anything other than their individual merits such as sex, sexual orientation and race is discriminatory.
I don't think anyone is debating that. I think most of us agree that judging on sex, sex orientation and race IS discriminatory.
The issue the manner in which that diversity is arrived at - whether it occurs as a natural outcome of not discrimating on the basis of attributes such as race or gender as opposed to consciously factoring in those sorts of things in your evaluation of a candidate.
I doubt that this is the issue. The originating poster suggests that companies that have a diversity statement are being racist.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,611
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
I apologize. I don't know if you are a racist or not.
billydkid said:
I apologize. I don't know if you are a racist or not.
Your words condemn you as worse than a palooka , you are a provincial lout, while you discuss the undergraduate admissions and Gratz v. Bollinger, I was making reference to the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which the SCOTUS did allow for the point based admisssions to Law School for people who were going to become lawyers.
I KNOW what you were talking about Grutter, hoss. People like you create a lot of entropy because you don't read carefully and keep track of what was said. I brought up the undergraduate case because you said the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply to private entities. I brought up Gratz ONLY as an example to show you are WRONG about that point, that the EPC DOES apply to entities which are government partners such as the U of M, in that they are up to their ears in government money, government tax breaks etc. Next time you mosey over to JREF hoss, lay of the 'shine!
I KNOW what you were talking about Grutter, hoss. People like you create a lot of entropy because you don't read carefully and keep track of what was said. I brought up the undergraduate case because you said the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply to private entities. I brought up Gratz ONLY as an example to show you are WRONG about that point, that the EPC DOES apply to entities which are government partners such as the U of M, in that they are up to their ears in government money, government tax breaks etc. Next time you mosey over to JREF hoss, lay of the 'shine!
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
It is a fact that many companies do, in fact, factor in race and sex in their evaluation of a candidate. They set an expectation (avoiding the term quota) that a certain percentage of their workforce is to be minority or female. In order to meet that expectation they factor in race and sex.
thaiboxerken said:
It is a fact that many companies do, in fact, factor in race and sex in their evaluation of a candidate. They set an expectation (avoiding the term quota) that a certain percentage of their workforce is to be minority or female. In order to meet that expectation they factor in race and sex.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,611
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please....
That may be, but having a diversity statement in a corporate mission statement is not evidence of this practice. Patrick seems to have a beef with the word diversity being used at all.
billydkid said:
That may be, but having a diversity statement in a corporate mission statement is not evidence of this practice. Patrick seems to have a beef with the word diversity being used at all.
Patrick seems to have a beef with the word diversity being used at all.
Yes, Patrick does have a problem with it. I have a problem with all the endless euphemisms that liberals hide behind to sugarcoat anti-white racial discrimination.
Yes, Patrick does have a problem with it. I have a problem with all the endless euphemisms that liberals hide behind to sugarcoat anti-white racial discrimination.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Patrick said:Your words condemn you as worse than a palooka , you are a provincial lout, while you discuss the undergraduate admissions and Gratz v. Bollinger, I was making reference to the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which the SCOTUS did allow for the point based admisssions to Law School for people who were going to become lawyers.
I KNOW what you were talking about Grutter, hoss. People like you create a lot of entropy because you don't read carefully and keep track of what was said. I brought up the undergraduate case because you said the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply to private entities. I brought up Gratz ONLY as an example to show you are WRONG about that point, that the EPC DOES apply to entities which are government partners such as the U of M, in that they are up to their ears in government money, government tax breaks etc. Next time you mosey over to JREF hoss, lay of the 'shine!
I knew what i was talking about, maybe if you didn't where your left side blinkers you wouldn't misunderstood.
You still haven't addressed the issue that in Grutter, there were many student who were bypassed for admission due to causes other than race, ignore away.
I am no hoss, dog most definitly.
knew what i was talking about, maybe if you didn't where your left side blinkers you wouldn't misunderstood.
You still haven't addressed the issue that in Grutter, there were many student who were bypassed for admission due to causes other than race, ignore away.
Totally incoherent.
You still haven't addressed the issue that in Grutter, there were many student who were bypassed for admission due to causes other than race, ignore away.
Totally incoherent.