Proof that Success is caused by Genetics

[AthenaAwakened]

Affirmative Action encompasses a plethora of policies and practices all with at least one goal in common, to increase opportunity and diversity in employment, education, and more braidly the general societal life of the citizenry.

People who constantly attack affirmative action appear to do so out of an anger over being robbed of segregation as a normal and morally accepted part of life, of a time when affirmative action was real and happening all the time, everywhere, but didn't have that name and was practice to advantage white people.

What you don't understand is anything more than outreach efforts is discrimination against white males.

How in hell do you come up with that? The assumption needed to make that statement true would be that white men have some kind of right to every opportunity and every positive outcome, or are so goddamn awesome that whenever they compete they automatically win. That no other consideration in any decision should ever take precedence over the spender of the white male.

It's no more right to discriminate against white males than it was to discriminate against blacks in times past.

If anything I think it's worse because the rationalization that it's for good--many don't even realize they are doing evil so there is less objection to the evil.

Evil? Evil? Venom fairly drips from nearly every post you have made on the subject of race on these boards and you speak of evil? Your opinion of what is and is not evil and 99 cents with get you a cup of coffee at Early Bird Cafe. FYI The price of a cup of coffee at the Early Bird? Fifty cents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you don't understand is anything more than outreach efforts is discrimination against white males.

How in hell do you come up with that? The assumption needed to make that statement true would be that white men have some kind of right to every opportunity and every positive outcome, or are so goddamn awesome that whenever they compete they automatically win. That no other consideration in any decision should ever take precedence over the spender of the white male.

It's no more right to discriminate against white males than it was to discriminate against blacks in times past.

If anything I think it's worse because the rationalization that it's for good--many don't even realize they are doing evil so there is less objection to the evil.

Evil? Evil? Venom fairly drips from nearly every post you have made on the subject of race on these boards and you speak of evil? Your opinion of what is and is not evil and 99 cents with get you a cup of coffee at Early Bird Cafe. FYI The price of a cup of coffee at the Early Bird? Fifty cents.

Discrimination is evil.

When you pretend it's for a good purpose you make it harder to get rid of the evil and thus I consider it a worse evil.

 

[laughing dog]

Discrimination is evil.

Employers discriminate every time they make a choice about who to hire. So, clearly employers making choices cannot automatically be viewed as evil. Now, I suppose you mean that discrimination based on supposedly irrelevant factors (SIFS) is evil. Then the issues are reduced to what are SIFs and what is evil. IMO, SIFS are a matter of debate, but choosing among people for a slot hardly rises to the level of EVIL, regardless of the factors used.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How in hell do you come up with that? The assumption needed to make that statement true would be that white men have some kind of right to every opportunity and every positive outcome, or are so goddamn awesome that whenever they compete they automatically win. That no other consideration in any decision should ever take precedence over the spender of the white male.

It's no more right to discriminate against white males than it was to discriminate against blacks in times past.

If anything I think it's worse because the rationalization that it's for good--many don't even realize they are doing evil so there is less objection to the evil.

Evil? Evil? Venom fairly drips from nearly every post you have made on the subject of race on these boards and you speak of evil? Your opinion of what is and is not evil and 99 cents with get you a cup of coffee at Early Bird Cafe. FYI The price of a cup of coffee at the Early Bird? Fifty cents.

Discrimination is evil.

and yet whenever discrimination is discussed on these boards with regards to discrimination being against minority populations, with rare exception you find some way to justify the actions of majority against the minority. You don't think discrimination is evil, for if you did, you would not be so willing to twist it as a way to protect power and justify systems and institutions that perpetuate discrimination every day.

When you pretend it's for a good purpose you make it harder to get rid of the evil and thus I consider it a worse evil.

I pretend nothing. I am not the one who lives in a delusion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Universities are not afraid of a little bit of nepotism, ...

Actually, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. ...

Then, later:

Discrimination is evil.

You are contradicting yourself in favor of the Man, like you typically do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Discrimination is evil.

Employers discriminate every time they make a choice about who to hire. So, clearly employers making choices cannot automatically be viewed as evil. Now, I suppose you mean that discrimination based on supposedly irrelevant factors (SIFS) is evil. Then the issues are reduced to what are SIFs and what is evil. IMO, SIFS are a matter of debate, but choosing among people for a slot hardly rises to the level of EVIL, regardless of the factors used.

By "discrimination" as a social issue we are normally referring to the irrelevant factors. Once again you are attempting to derail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. ...

Then, later:

Discrimination is evil.

You are contradicting yourself in favor of the Man, like you typically do.

No--I'm saying there is a substantial advantage to the university from the nepotism, it's not irrelevant.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Then, later:

Discrimination is evil.

You are contradicting yourself in favor of the Man, like you typically do.

No--I'm saying there is a substantial advantage to the university from the nepotism, it's not irrelevant.

What did the university get in the op?

 

[ksen]

Then, later:

Discrimination is evil.

You are contradicting yourself in favor of the Man, like you typically do.

No--I'm saying there is a substantial advantage to the university from the nepotism, it's not irrelevant.

What did the university get in the op?

They got owed a favor by a powerful senator.

 

[laughing dog]

Employers discriminate every time they make a choice about who to hire. So, clearly employers making choices cannot automatically be viewed as evil. Now, I suppose you mean that discrimination based on supposedly irrelevant factors (SIFS) is evil. Then the issues are reduced to what are SIFs and what is evil. IMO, SIFS are a matter of debate, but choosing among people for a slot hardly rises to the level of EVIL, regardless of the factors used.

By "discrimination" as a social issue we are normally referring to the irrelevant factors. Once again you are attempting to derail.

Only if there is agreement as to what constitutes a SIF. There isn't.

I like how your response ignored the actual content of the response and focused on a straw man.

 

[coloradoatheist]

By "discrimination" as a social issue we are normally referring to the irrelevant factors. Once again you are attempting to derail.

Only if there is agreement as to what constitutes a SIF. There isn't.

I like how your response ignored the actual content of the response and focused on a straw man.

Are you using the definition of discrimination in the form of judging a person based on what group they belong to?

 

[laughing dog]

Only if there is agreement as to what constitutes a SIF. There isn't.

I like how your response ignored the actual content of the response and focused on a straw man.

Are you using the definition of discrimination in the form of judging a person based on what group they belong to?

That is implicitly what LP is using. Discrimination is the act of discriminating which is discerning differences. Employers discriminate in hiring decisions almost all of the time. It is whether the discrimination is based on relevant or supposedly irrelevant factors that matters. What LP is unable to grasp is that there is not necessarily agreement over what are relevant or SIFs. His usage is sloppy and imprecise which is an indication of sloppy and imprecise thinking.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Are you using the definition of discrimination in the form of judging a person based on what group they belong to?

That is implicitly what LP is using. Discrimination is the act of discriminating which is discerning differences. Employers discriminate in hiring decisions almost all of the time. It is whether the discrimination is based on relevant or supposedly irrelevant factors that matters. What LP is unable to grasp is that there is not necessarily agreement over what are relevant or SIFs. His usage is sloppy and imprecise which is an indication of sloppy and imprecise thinking.

so if a word has multiple definitions and we are using the definition most understood with the word, it's not okay?

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By "discrimination" as a social issue we are normally referring to the irrelevant factors. Once again you are attempting to derail.

Only if there is agreement as to what constitutes a SIF. There isn't.

I like how your response ignored the actual content of the response and focused on a straw man.

Talk about projection!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Only if there is agreement as to what constitutes a SIF. There isn't.

I like how your response ignored the actual content of the response and focused on a straw man.

Talk about projection!

Speaking of ignoring content, why do people go off on some tangent where they can point the finger at someone/something else instead of addressing ops? We see that kind of thing in rape and murder threads where people blame the victim but this op is about an ideological position and we see something similar. I mean, I wrote the op about your and other's position about success due to genetics. Instead, you and others essentially yelled, "look, black people!!," thus distracting the issue elsewhere. And to top it off, you then went and started another thread about your topic. I invite you to instead address the real op here, but can you do it?

 

[laughing dog]

That is implicitly what LP is using. Discrimination is the act of discriminating which is discerning differences. Employers discriminate in hiring decisions almost all of the time. It is whether the discrimination is based on relevant or supposedly irrelevant factors that matters. What LP is unable to grasp is that there is not necessarily agreement over what are relevant or SIFs. His usage is sloppy and imprecise which is an indication of sloppy and imprecise thinking.

so if a word has multiple definitions and we are using the definition most understood with the word, it's not okay?

Don't whine at me if you and LP prefer sloppiness over accuracy.

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

The traditional definition of discrimination is the one I am using because that term existed long before anyone worried this stuff. The two instances are examples of discrimination. The former example might be an example of discrimination based on relevant criteria and the latter an example of one based on irrelevant criteria.

 

[laughing dog]

Only if there is agreement as to what constitutes a SIF. There isn't.

I like how your response ignored the actual content of the response and focused on a straw man.

Talk about projection!

Still evading the content. The typical LP response of irony, babble and irrelevancy - a perfect metaphor for your contributions to this thread and others.

 

[coloradoatheist]

so if a word has multiple definitions and we are using the definition most understood with the word, it's not okay?

Don't whine at me if you and LP prefer sloppiness over accuracy.

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

The traditional definition of discrimination is the one I am using because that term existed long before anyone worried this stuff. The two instances are examples of discrimination. The former example might be an example of discrimination based on relevant criteria and the latter an example of one based on irrelevant criteria.

No. You are trying to use the non-primary definition when using discriminate. Both words are definitions of discriminate, but when one things about discrimination, it is making a decision about someone based on the group, race, or class instead of individuality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don't whine at me if you and LP prefer sloppiness over accuracy.

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

The traditional definition of discrimination is the one I am using because that term existed long before anyone worried this stuff. The two instances are examples of discrimination. The former example might be an example of discrimination based on relevant criteria and the latter an example of one based on irrelevant criteria.

No. You are trying to use the non-primary definition when using discriminate. Both words are definitions of discriminate, but when one things about discrimination, it is making a decision about someone based on the group, race, or class instead of individuality.

Since you wrote class, you think legacies and nepotism are discrimination?

Also, knowing excel better means better at math?? That's like saying people on AOL are better at social media. Your discriminant is a bit off.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Don't whine at me if you and LP prefer sloppiness over accuracy.

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

The traditional definition of discrimination is the one I am using because that term existed long before anyone worried this stuff. The two instances are examples of discrimination. The former example might be an example of discrimination based on relevant criteria and the latter an example of one based on irrelevant criteria.

No. You are trying to use the non-primary definition when using discriminate. Both words are definitions of discriminate, but when one things about discrimination, it is making a decision about someone based on the group, race, or class instead of individuality.

Since you wrote class, you think legacies and nepotism are discrimination?

Also, knowing excel better means better at math?? That's like saying people on AOL are better at social media. Your discriminant is a bit off.

By the definition, nepotism could be based on an individual trait instead of a group trait. But it should not be used in selection.

And the last part, I was using two different examples.