Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

quote:

---

There are better and worse doctors.

---

True. But they all met the existing minimum requirement for becoming MD's, right?The standards haven't been lowered for examinations due to Affermative action or anything, correct?

quote:

---

There are also thousands upon thousands of people who would have made it through med school and become doctors, but didn't becausde using the best evaluation standards we have, there were others deemed more capable who got in before them.

---

Sometimes, people can have the best test scores in the world but fail miserably at real world situations.

quote:

---

At least, that's how it used to be and still should.

---

No, it used to be the best evaluation standards we had eliminated entire groups of people from consiferation based upon skin color, ethnicity, social class, and gender.Many of those who believe in such discrimination are still in powerful positions today.

quote:

---

You say teh researchers thought discrimination was occuring. Yes they did and i didn't say otherwise. the issue is on what basis? Was it discrimination based on racism? Or were other factors on play?

---

OK.Are you saying that people with black-sounding names with similar qualifications and work histories to people with white-sounding names are inherently less suited for certain jobs? Are you saying that blacks are inherently less suited for certain jobs than whites?

quote:

---

Racism is racism. It has nothing to do with slavery, unless you're positing the notion that residual discrimination is aimed at Blacks only because they had been slaves.

---

Of course discrimination against blacks in America has EVERYTHING to do with slavery.Blacks were considered subhuman for 200 years in America. Then, up until about 50 years ago, they were considered by millions of Americans to be human, barely, but highly inferior, bestial, and incapable of intellectual achievement.We just convicted a man for the murders of three civil rights workers just 41 years ago in rural Mississippi. People got away with murder based upon race just a few decades ago.Why on earth do you think that everything is hunky dory across this country and we can just pretend that everyone gets a fair shot?

quote:

---

That might be an argument to maintain affirmative action (although I do not accept it), but it is a highly dubious argument for why there might be employer discrimination against Blacks but not other minority groups.

---

I'd really like to hear why you think that.

quote:

---

When peopel apply for university, points can be awarded for community service and other activities, but typically that will not have to have an ethnicity or gender factor attached.

---

But it is often a clue to the applicant's gender, and sometimes a clue to the applicant's ethnicity.

quote:

---

And when it is, that part can gain points, but refrences to ethnicity or gender eliminated when final decisions are made.

---

But you can't "forget" someone's gender or ethnicity if you already know what it is. Besides, what about college interviews and recruiting for graduate school?

quote:

---

of course, if universities simply dropped affirmative action of any kind, then it wouldn't matter really.

---

Say goodbye to American women getting many university sports scholarships and equal sports facilities to men. Back to holding bake sales to raise money to travel to tournaments, back to not having the right equipment to excel.I also notice that you did not address this point:

quote:

---

But we should bear in mind that large companies want good relations with all consumers. If Gm were considered to be racist when it hired, it would lose a lot of potential minority cutomers.

---

quote:

---

White (straight) men are now the only legal and socially sanctioned target of discrimination.

---

...and yet, white straight men rule the country.Poor babies.When white straight men become a minority in all three branches of government, and in business, then you mightget my attention.but now it simply sounds as though you are complaining about not being always on top, first choice, pick of the litter.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2005 08:50 PM

What, are you kidding? Why don't you ask your buddy Eric Rudolph about peace, tolerance, and restraint? What? How does that make any sense? If laws were all that were holding black people back, then all that was needed was the repeal of those laws. The very fact that affirmative action was instituted in the first place is proof that certain conditions mandated it; conditions that persist to this day. You can't know that. The reverse could very well be true. Well, then don't wonder. The fact that you wonder when it's a black woman, but you don't wonder if your white male doctor was top of his class or barely passed his exams is a pretty good indication that, like most people with a big hard-on about affirmative action (which will almost certainly never affect them), you're probably a racist. Hey, you're right. That must be why all us Americans and all you Canadians live in teepees, pass the peace pipe, and hunt with the bow and arrow.Oh, wait. It's funny how you can decry ethnocentrisim living, as we both do, in cultures that were imported from Europe and imposed without mercy on the native inhabitants of these lands. Uh-huh. And when the Native Americans want to live as Native Americans, where are they supposed to go?

Who believes them? You? If you don't then why do you bring them up? The simple truth is that you haven't even begun to address my post. Why is that, exactly?

Technical MINIMUM standards remain. The actual average ability of doctors has probably decreased.True, test scores are not the whole story. But they are the best indicator. And, in any event, neither have test scores ever been the sole criteria for acceptance. But whatever complete set of criteria has been used as the most comprehensive, overall OBJECTIVE means, has now been compromised. If you believe those criteria were race biased, you're a lost far leftist cause. But if ever you have a child whose life depends on a truly skilled doctor seeing her, you may have second thoughts about this.I've never said that Blacks are inherently less skilled. But for whatever reasons, if, IF, employers, either overall or in specific zones, have objective experience that their Black employees are, generally speaking, less able for whatever reasons than non Black employees, then to act on that is not racism per se. All employers use the best predictors they can to come up with the best workforce. If Blacks prove to be the best workers, overall, then the chances are more than good that the same employers who now discriminate against Blacks, would then discriminate for them. Overall - with exceptions for true racists - experience, not race, determines employer preferences.I disagree about slavery. During most of that same era, all non whites were seen that way in white societies, just as whites were seen in very pejorative terms in non white societies. But times have radcially changed. That Blacks were seen and treated so badly not all that long ago simply has no connection to affirmative action today - other than, perhaps, because slavery broke down such a high percentage of Black families, the residual effect is a large, underperforming, Black underclass. If that is so - and it's only a theory - then affirmative action is not the answer. Concentrated resources, social supports, education, etc, is. So is getting almost babies born of painfully immature, often substance abusing, single Black omen adopted out to mature, capable families, preferably Black for obvious reasons.If you insist that there is no way to adjudicate university apps while giving consideration to various community activities and linking that to race, then i say use the exact same standard for every applicant. Community activities earn so many points. But race and ethnicity do not. Nor are they actually noted anywhere. Yes, someone going over an app will note that someone may have worked in an ethnic setting, but that doesn't have to be written down anywhere, as it is the service and activity that earns points, not its location. Thus you don't have to forget, becasue it's not written down anywhere to forget - only the points are documented.Affirmative action has nothing to do with equal sports facilities. That is an altogether different matter, one of OBJECTIVITY. It is objectively fair that women get equal facilities. It is hopelessly subjective and absurd to say, if we're to follow the logic of affirmative action, that because women have had lesser facilities in times past, they should now get even better ones than men for who knows how many years. And Black women should get even better facilities than white women.As for white men ruling the nation...First, anyone can run for office. the majority of voters are not white men. second, white men in power have to win the votes of non white men, so adjust their policies accordingly. And, the next US president may well be a women, white (Clinton) or Black (Rice, my choice).

frankly, you're comments are simply too irrational to be worth responding to. (And, BTW, in a city that is 85% white, almost half of the employees i hired for my agency were non white.)

No, that's exactly racism, when you use it as a predictor for the performance of black persons you have no experience with. And only racists conclude that their negative experiences with individuals of a certain race will apply to persons who have black-sounding names.You seem to have forgotten that part. The actual race of the individual was not communicated to the employer. Merely the applicant's name.When a person is declined opportunity for reasons that have everything to do with race and nothing to do with their capacity as a worker, the term for that is "racism."

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Well, what else is new? Uh-huh. Sorry but I don't take the word of racists.

If for 9 of your 10 employees you hire, let's say, Martians. They prove to be less adept than the Plutonian who was your 10th. Next month you need to hire another 10. Again you hire 9 mMartians and 1 Plutonian, the latter, again, proving to be more capable. Then, once more this is your experience. Does that mean you're racist on the next hiring round when you hire 9 Plutonians and only one Martian? That is not to say that that is the experience of employers in the US with respect to Blacks. It is to say that it may be, and that may explain the results of that survey.One of the left's favourite tricks is to throw out the word racist. They especially do that when they are at a loss for a rational argument.

Like i said before, when a leftist is bereft of a rational argument, out comes the "racist" accusation. You're right on cue.

Yes. Technically "speciesist", but a bigot either way. So you say, but you're the one who can't cobble together a coherent rebuttal to any of my posts to you. Morever you're the one who always instigates the name-calling. Why is that?

Canadian Steve got it right: Or "speciesist" or "bigot."

It's funny to see you leap to his defense when almost 100% of your threads devolve into your shrieking, ad hominem rants. Like I suspect you're about to do right now.Welcome back, Faith. The place is a whole lot less funny without you around.

I'd say you're about due for a brief vacation from EvC myself. You've racked up more than a few offenses recently, including this one and the namecalling accusations of Canadian Steve. Or are you exempt for some reason?This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 08:07 AM

now now.. that's a bit rich coming from someone who to be given special treatment because you were incapable of going more than 10 posts without foaming at the mouth.

No it says they must await the signs of the prophecy and when that happens a war will come where all nonXians will be killed, and Jesus will return to start his kingdom on earth.You were the one who set the criteria of literally as written. Does it say this or not Steve? LITERALLY AS WRITTEN.As it is, the only way to get a literal reading for muslims as you depict it, is to take certain sections out of context, and ignore other literally worded sections against this kind of thing.You of course continue to not discuss any of these factual issues, because you believe that allows you the freedom to say you are right. They were not all here at the founding, and they were not involved with forming the govt. They did try and change it, which the founding fathers had to fight and did fight and wrote about, as well as now trying to seclude themselves.They fit your criteria just the same as muslims and hispanics. Indeed the idea that there were no muslims or hispanics at all in the colonies or any of the territories before those territories were added is a bit odd. This is the first subject we can "agree to disagree" on.Israel has a democratic republican styled constitution/govt. If that is all it takes to be a true liberal democracy then it can be considered that. Of course that would then include some other nations within the MidEast besides Iraq, though I am sure you can come up with other criteria so as to separate them.To me a nation must allow free movement and growth, indeed equal treatment, for all citizens to be a true liberal democracy. Israel is constructed to favor jews at the expense of all others, such that they will always be a minority in the nation and so the government. That is a racist state. No they don't. If Israel folded tomorrow, or never existed, the US would not be any worse for the wear, and indeed would have been much better off. Creating Israel was an imperialist decision to resurrect a 3 millenia dead racist/theocratic nation on a land filled with a majority of other people. There has, predictably, been nothing but pain since.It was a bad decision and it remains a bad decision. You are so full of it. Not all of Islam is against jews, and indeed it was once the only safe haven for jews when Xians were persecuting them. That was without the benefit of democracy.On the flip side there were and still are plenty of democratic nations where jews are persecuted.Iraq was not overtly persecuting jews at all, though clearly they were not a popular religion. My Iraqi friend was telling me they even allowed temples to Shaitan, which did have a few followers.And I will note that unlike Iraq, Israel is not giving legal protection to anyone but jews.Bigotry and discrimination are not connected to specific legislative construction.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)