Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS aren't morons....today.Follow

#152 Jul 10 2014 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
Lol, being poor is like being short.

Poverty is a naturally occurring condition. I suppose then being rich is also naturally occurring. Like rain and earthquakes.

Quote:
What is *not* justice, or fairness, or anything remotely like that, is the idea that I must provide you with a better life because you were born poor.
It's not humane, I'll give you that.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#153 Jul 10 2014 at 8:52 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Being born poor is a condition. No one's stealing your money from you. That sucks and all, but just like being born short, the rest of society is not to blame for it, nor should any concept of "justice" require that others adjust for your lack of height (or wealth).


True, unless of course being born into poverty wasn't a choice on a big wheel spun at the birthing factory where children pop out a door. If, instead, it was the result of intentional ghettoizing of large segments of society to create a permanent underclass then society is completely to blame for it and should make reparations.

Strong argument for reparations you've made, brother. What are 40 acres and a mule worth accounting for inflation and compound interest? A few million per descendent? Sounds good. I like the way you think.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#154 Jul 10 2014 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
With modern factory farming techniques, we could get that down to a half acre and a Garden Weasel™.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Jul 10 2014 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
But we have an urban gardening initiative!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#156 Jul 10 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If I charge you more for something because of your skin color, I'm taking an action which harms you.
But you're totally okay with different business practices based on beliefs.


The word "but" in your sentence only makes sense if that sentence contradicts the sentence I wrote. It doesn't though, so what's your point? I'm also okay with people deciding whether to wear a hat when getting dressed. That's just as irrelevant to the issue of racial discrimination.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Jul 10 2014 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
The word "but" in your sentence only makes sense if that sentence contradicts the sentence I wrote.
Since it does contradict the sentence you wrote, I guess we're square. Good game.

Rogue s removal.

Edited, Jul 10th 2014 3:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#158 Jul 10 2014 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Elinda wrote:
Lol, being poor is like being short.

Poverty is a naturally occurring condition. I suppose then being rich is also naturally occurring. Like rain and earthquakes.


I said "Being born poor is a condition". That extra word actually does serve an important function in the sentence and isn't there by accident.

Quote:
Quote:
What is *not* justice, or fairness, or anything remotely like that, is the idea that I must provide you with a better life because you were born poor.
It's not humane, I'll give you that.


Again though you are ignoring key words in my post. The word "must" is significant. I'm free to choose to help those less fortunate than myself. The issue is whether the government should force me to do so. That's where the issue stops being about people making humane choices, and becomes about governments imposing themselves on their citizenry. Let me decide the most humane way to help someone in need. Because when the government does it, we run the risk of the systems of "help" ceasing to be about people helping other people, but a means of control and power for those in charge of "helping". Which is precisely the problem with many of our social programs today.

Edited, Jul 10th 2014 12:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#159 Jul 10 2014 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts
gbaji wrote:
Again though you are ignoring key words in my post. The word "must" is significant. I'm free to choose to help those less fortunate than myself. The issue is whether the government should force me to do so. That's where the issue stops being about people making humane choices, and becomes about governments imposing themselves on their citizenry. Let me decide the most humane way to help someone in need. Because when the government does it, we run the risk of the systems of "help" ceasing to be about people helping other people, but a means of control and power for those in charge of "helping". Which is precisely the problem with many of our social programs today.

Haha. The problem with the world is that we are just giving too much help to poor people. The system of power that controls major governments is just so consumed with going out of their way to help poor people, that it's really just ******** everything up. Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#160 Jul 11 2014 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm free to choose to help those less fortunate than myself.
It's just a coincidence that the people you choose to help are only white, male, Christian, hetero, and share the exact political views.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 Jul 11 2014 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
If human nature were that benevolent, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Again, it goes back to the core issue of capitalism. You're either being entirely naive out dishonest to think that the majority of people would take it upon themselves to help out the less fortunate in their immediate vicinity, without any other motivating factor. But paying a little into a system to spread the help around makes it more palatable. You know, like a government.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#162 Jul 11 2014 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
It's easier to help the unwashed masses when you don't have to interact with them directly. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#163 Jul 11 2014 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
That's why flamethrowers were invented. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#164 Jul 11 2014 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
Carrot and stick approach? Or do we lure them in with promises of Obamaphones and turn on them?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#165 Jul 11 2014 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Superglue an iPhone 5 to the sidewalk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#166 Jul 11 2014 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
trickybeck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again though you are ignoring key words in my post. The word "must" is significant. I'm free to choose to help those less fortunate than myself. The issue is whether the government should force me to do so. That's where the issue stops being about people making humane choices, and becomes about governments imposing themselves on their citizenry. Let me decide the most humane way to help someone in need. Because when the government does it, we run the risk of the systems of "help" ceasing to be about people helping other people, but a means of control and power for those in charge of "helping". Which is precisely the problem with many of our social programs today.

Haha. The problem with the world is that we are just giving too much help to poor people. The system of power that controls major governments is just so consumed with going out of their way to help poor people, that it's really just ******** everything up. Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol


We're talking just about the US here. And the problem isn't with quantity, but with how it's directed. The political left in the US targets government "help" more on the basis of how it benefits them politically than on the actual need of the people. AA is just an extreme example of this. It's done to win over black votes. And at the risk of cross thread shenanigans, Obama's "help" of illegal minors via DACA had everything to do with winning Latino votes. The long term effects (often negative) on those being "helped" is secondary to those immediate political benefits.

And yes, private charities are vastly better at targeting help to those in need, based on that need. I'm not saying don't help those in need. I'm saying that the way the Left proposes to do it is terrible at helping them and great at helping the Left. I'd prefer that our help not come with such political baggage.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Jul 11 2014 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

And yes, private charities are vastly better at targeting help to those in need, based on that need.


Cite? Just kidding.

You're wrong.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#168 Jul 11 2014 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The long term effects (often negative) on those being "helped" is secondary to those immediate political benefits.

That's true. Later on, you might get ignorant dumbfucks who weren't even aware of what the policy said blaming it for various things it had little to do with. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Jul 11 2014 at 6:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

That's true. Later on, you might get ignorant ********* who weren't even aware of what the policy said blaming it for various things it had little to do with.


Let's not forget "have no idea they benefit from government hand outs". "I'm sure there would be 30 year loans without government guarantees", "Keep your government hands off my medicare", etc. etc.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#170 Jul 11 2014 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

And yes, private charities are vastly better at targeting help to those in need, based on that need.


Cite? Just kidding.


Sure. One of the first hits on google. I picked this one because it itself contains references to the sources used by the author. I'm sure I could find more though.

Quote:
You're wrong.


Lol.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Jul 11 2014 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Libertarian blogger on libertarian site cites her libertarian book's use of libertarian studies from National Center for Policy Analysis and Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Sounds legit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#172 Jul 11 2014 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,250 posts
It's a privately funded echo chamber, Joph. That makes it okay.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#173 Jul 11 2014 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
Short answers, my ***! Smiley: mad
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#174 Jul 11 2014 at 10:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Sure. One of the first hits on google. I picked this one because it itself contains references to the sources used by the author. I'm sure I could find more though.

K. Find one. Let me know.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#175 Jul 12 2014 at 1:50 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
644 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Libertarian blogger on libertarian site cites her libertarian book's use of libertarian studies from National Center for Policy Analysis and Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Sounds legit.

Its totally legit. Sure, the studies are almost 20 years old with 1996 being the most recent thing I've seen, but thats OK. Unlike science, economics is stable enough that it never needs updating.
#176 Jul 13 2014 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

And yes, private charities are vastly better at targeting help to those in need, based on that need.


Cite? Just kidding.


Sure. One of the first hits on google. I picked this one because it itself contains references to the sources used by the author. I'm sure I could find more though.

Quote:
You're wrong.


Lol.

The validity of the research aside, the point being made it more about dollar vs dollar cost to provide a thing to a group. I didn't see much about how effectively the dollars spent changed the economic curve.

This premise that it's based on...

Quote:
about 75% of the tax dollars that are targeted to welfare programs actually go to the middle-class administrators rather than the needy. In contrast, private programs give about 75% of donated dollars to the poor. Thus, the poor get more when charitable giving is private.
...even if true doesn't really address the economics. Sure, churches can get little old ladies to volunteer their time to serve up lunches every Tuesday and Thursday at the local soup kitchen. I'm sure the non-profit that is providing this lunch can do it cheaper than the DHHS but it's not providing a social structure to ensure on-going equitable distribution of resources to ALL that might be in need.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#177 Jul 13 2014 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
even if true

It isn't true. Not even vaguely close to true, so we can stop pretty much everything after that from being taken seriously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#178 Jul 14 2014 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
I'm still waiting to find out where the people saying we can't spend money on some of these programs are finding money to meddle with all the Middle Eastern *********
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#179 Jul 14 2014 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm still waiting to find out where the people saying we can't spend money on some of these programs are finding money to meddle with all the Middle Eastern bullsh*t.

You and Rahm both.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#180 Jul 14 2014 at 8:03 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
From Big Oil, obviously.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#181 Jul 14 2014 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. One of the first hits on google.
Personalized search results FTW. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#182 Jul 14 2014 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
I entered, "Are private charities better at targeting those in need?" into my search bar and got a Slate article titled, Why Charity Can't Replace the Safety Net.

Next on the list an article titled, The Voluntarism Fantasy in The Democracy Journal.

I'm sure gbaji will let me know how I incorrectly worded the question to get the answer I wanted, but it was still a fun little exercise in google-reinforced bias. Smiley: grin

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#183 Jul 14 2014 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
You probably spelled it wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#184 Jul 14 2014 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I Googled "Are libertarian ideas about charity as incredibly stupid as I suspect?" and the first hit was an article titled "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid"

So, yeah, there's my research.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Jul 14 2014 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I Googled "Are libertarian ideas about charity as incredibly stupid as I suspect?" and the first hit was an article titled "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid"

So, yeah, there's my research.
It's basically scientific proof.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#186 Jul 14 2014 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
There's software out there that attempts to map protein interactions by data-mining different websites and internet search results. Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#187 Jul 14 2014 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,949 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
There's software out there that attempts to map protein interactions by data-mining different websites and internet search results. Smiley: tinfoilhat

Is that a mastturbation joke?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#188 Jul 14 2014 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
If it was, it would have been about HARDware, not SOFTware!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#189 Jul 14 2014 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#190 Jul 14 2014 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Smiley: rolleyes


Smiley: glare
Smiley: bah
Smiley: frown
Smiley: sly
Smiley: dubious
Smiley: laugh
Smiley: nod.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#191 Jul 14 2014 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#192 Jul 14 2014 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#193 Jul 14 2014 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Smiley: tinfoilhat


FTFY
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#194 Jul 14 2014 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Smiley: madSmiley: madSmiley: mad
Smiley: madSmiley: madSmiley: mad
Smiley: madSmiley: madSmiley: mad
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#195 Jul 14 2014 at 10:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,987 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
.

 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 




No, It was going to be like 7 Smiley: lol tall, and about 12 Smiley: lol across



Use the .[pre] tag
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#196 Jul 14 2014 at 10:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,987 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Helpful image for gbaji:


That's cute, as long as one doesn't realize that the picture labeled as "justice" isn't justice. Justice offsets injustice. Meaning that it only exists within the context of unjust actions. If I take something from you, justice would require (at a minimum) that it be taken from me and returned to you. Justice does not act to offset natural conditions. The tall person did not take height from the short person. Thus, no system of justice would require that his box be taken from him and given to the short person in order to balance out their respective heights.

This, in a nutshell, is where most people go wrong with the concept of rights, liberty, justice, etc. They fail to understand the difference between naturally occurring conditions and those imposed on one by someone else. Government can and should act to adjust for the latter, but while it *may* act to adjust for the former, it is not required, and it's absolutely not "unfair" or "unjust" for it not to.


The image is helpful at illustrating how people apply incorrect labels to things though. So thanks, I guess.


Well, if it wasn't so taboo, almost all of us could be tall, and allocate boxes for the few who weren't. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the only solutions are moving around of the boxes or leaving them where random chance allows them to end up.

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 12:35am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#197 Jul 14 2014 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,987 posts
xantav wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Libertarian blogger on libertarian site cites her libertarian book's use of libertarian studies from National Center for Policy Analysis and Journal of Libertarian Studies.

Sounds legit.

Its totally legit. Sure, the studies are almost 20 years old with 1996 being the most recent thing I've seen, but thats OK. Unlike science, economics is stable enough that it never needs updating.


It does and it doesn't.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#198 Jul 14 2014 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,579 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
.

 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 




No, It was going to be like 7 Smiley: lol tall, and about 12 Smiley: lol across



Use the .[pre] tag


But isn't there a limit on the number of smileys? Like 9 [:lol:]'s? Yep, can't have more then 9 [:lol:] 's on a post
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#199 Jul 15 2014 at 4:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Of course. The party that is *not* passing legislation that directly targets minority groups for benefits will always appear this way. But that's because the GOP is *not* being racist, not because we are. The problem is that we're being judged by a standard that is itself inherently racist.


Two points:

1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.

Gbaji wrote:
To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color. Period.

Racism is defined as the belief that a race is inherently superior or inferior to another race. People on both sides of the argument get this wrong.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#200 Jul 15 2014 at 5:01 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,949 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.


I don't think that the policies to help those races should be targeting them by race though. The legitimate concern is that what happens to these laws as things do get better? You would have benefits coded into law for specific races, when do they disappear? And then what happens when there are people stuck in a similar location, possibly even neighbors, who aren't the right race to get the benefits?

The focus should be on the economic position the people are in. The issue being that the past racist policies have left the a disproportionate number of minorities in these poor conditions. Truly help the poor, you help the minorities, but in a way that could evolve to help anyone stuck in those positions rather than just specific races.

That specific case in Texas, where public colleges set aside enrollment for the top X% of any school, was the right way to go around doing it. Obviously that one was challenged too, but I think it has a solid reasoning behind it and would work well for helping those in poor conditions.

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 7:04am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#201 Jul 15 2014 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. You would have a valid point IF there weren't prior mistreatment. You can't enslave a race, prevent them from learning English, strip their heritage/names, prevent them from going to school, prevent them from living in certain housing, prevent them from voting, etc., then say, "oh, well to make laws to address those wrong doings would be 'inherently racist'.


I don't think that the policies to help those races should be targeting them by race though. The legitimate concern is that what happens to these laws as things do get better? You would have benefits coded into law for specific races, when do they disappear? And then what happens when there are people stuck in a similar location, possibly even neighbors, who aren't the right race to get the benefits?

The focus should be on the economic position the people are in. The issue being that the past racist policies have left the a disproportionate number of minorities in these poor conditions. Truly help the poor, you help the minorities, but in a way that could evolve to help anyone stuck in those positions rather than just specific races.

That specific case in Texas, where public colleges set aside enrollment for the top X% of any school, was the right way to go around doing it. Obviously that one was challenged too, but I think it has a solid reasoning behind it and would work well for helping those in poor conditions.

Edited, Jul 15th 2014 7:04am by TirithRR
Differential treatment under the law is certainly a valid point to argue against. Affirmative action treats a symptom, not the disease. However, targeting income for 'special' programs in the same vein as affirmative action is just as discriminatory as targeting race or *** or what have you.

Also focusing on the economic status doesn't address racism at all. It just further pits the haves against the have-nots.

It's a tough call. Affirmative action, while still controversial, has been fairly successful in doing what it was meant to do (which, btw, was not to win over black votes....lawl).


Edited, Jul 15th 2014 2:27pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Bijou, Kuwoobie, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (43)