Unitended racism

Its more of an issue with not having the time. You're acting like you've already read all that stuff so I figured you would have the link handy and just post it to be a nice guy and help somebody out you fucking asshole! You haven't shown me any reason to not trust it other than to take your word for it. Given the track record of your honesty, I'll go with the mass media's take on it.

ok, I'll give you that. Let me revise my previous statement accordingly:(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You didn't seriously suggest that access to a network of information that is practically ubiquitous in terms of its availability and accessibility and access to which is widely accepted and encouraged equates with access to a physical operation that carries a slight health risk, has moral repercussions and is widely condemned by a significant percentage of the population, did you? I do, but I'm not talking about racism at this particular point, I'm talking about your equating access to the internet with access to abortion. this is generally true, but -your unfortunate analogy aside- the internet is as public and freely available as it gets. Same goes for newspapers. You are implying that advertising on the internet puts certain people at disadvantage. I challenge this notion. It's a poor excuse to suggest that a minority member looking for work can't get access to the internet for an hour or so to check the job boards, even if that means they have to walk to the local library or job centre. In Britain there is a classification of degrees to (in order of value): 1st class, 2nd class 1, 2nd class 2 and third class. It is generally accepted across all employers that the "best degree" is the 1st class one, the 2nd best is the 2-1 and so on. I'm sure there's an equivalent system in the US.In that way disparate employers can objectively and universally judge the merit of a degree.Now you tell me, what are the means of classification of 'disadvantage'? and how are they derived?Do those means -if they exist- allow disparate employers to objectively and universally judge the merit of 'disadvantage'? No ? I didn't think so. Advertised vacancies have an associated skill set. Interviews allow employers to simply tick-off the candidate's relevant skills off a list. 'Hard' skills like scientific, engineering or technical ones can be easily and objectively measured with tests. 'Soft' skills are harder to measure, but there's still more objectivity involved than there can ever be with assessing 'disadvantage'.Now you tell me, what are the means of testing for 'disadvantage'? does everyoe get the same questions? what are those questions? Do they allow disparate employers to objectively and universally judge the merit of 'disadvantage'? No ? I didn't think so. Not at all. Having been involved in the recruitment process for a few years now, I know first hand that measuring skills and qualifications isn't 100% objective. However, it's as objective as a selection criterion can get. It's an order of magnitude more objective than trying to determine whether the Korean candidate who didn't learn English is more or less disadvantaged than the Romanian candidate who didn't have the chance to learn English as his family was too poor. But *this is exactly the point*: Because the employers main selection criterion (audition) was so subjective that their racial bias was coming through. Imagine if, instead, they had made their selection solely on the candidates' years of experience, previous orchestras, awards and other measurable and objective criteria: You would be guaranteed to have a good representation of minorities in the orchestra! Why? Because the employer would just have to hire a trumpet player with 20 years of experience at the London Philarmonic instead of someone with 5 years of playing the trumpet for their local brass band. It wouldn't matter what race, colour or sex the candidates were, the qualifications and skills would speak for themselves.In the same way, when it comes to assessing something as subjective as 'disadvantage' the assessor's own bias will come through. Because there's no such thing as a first or second class degree in 'disadvantage-ness', nothing to measure - only emotion and the politics of self-righteousness. 'Disadvantage' is what you want it to be. No, this practice isn't "emotional" and "political", it's plain old totalitarianism. It's sinister social engineering motivated by some high ideal of correctness.Why should the workplace demographics reflect the general population demographics? Show me the case studies that show how specific employers have benefited from matching their demographics with that of the general population! Take note, I want to see specific case studies with measurable benefits, NOT preachy airy-fairy buzzwords like 'increased synergy', 'adaptability', 'flexibility' and such like.In any case, taking a numerical survey of the population and comparing it to the demographic distribution without taking other selection considerations into account is meaningless. Example: I'd wager that the number of Hindus working in an abattoir wouldn't match the percentage of Hindus in the local population. That doesn't mean that the abattoir is being racist, nor that it should start advertising in the Hindu press for qualified butchers. it just means that Hindus are probably not the best people for slaughtering cows. Read the whole of the preceding exchange and see for yourself how you're not really reading what I write. Ok. If you say so. But we're not talking about quantifying *race* here, we're talking about quantifying *knowledge*, regardless of race. That's what measuring skills and qualifications is all about. YOU are the one insisting on putting race into the equation. I'm the one trying to remove it. The sweet irony is that you're implying that I'm a racist!Edited by Legend, : spellingEdited by Legend, : grammar

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

In Message 82 YOU paraphrased ME as claiming:
"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means a white male ('Because customers are just more comfortable discussing figures with a man'), then it's just tough noogies."To which YOU responded: Then in Message 116 YOU wrote: So which is it? If I claim that:"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means a white male ('Because customers are just more comfortable discussing figures with a man'), then it's just tough noogies."Am I a bigot, yes or no?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Catholic Scientists responds to me:

quote:

---

Its more of an issue with not having the time.

---

You mean you don't have 10 seconds to go to the Supreme Court's website and type the word "Ricci"? You need somebody else to do it for you?At any rate, you miss the point. I can provide the link for you, yes, but that still won't make you read it. Instead, by forcing you to do your own homework, we can determine whether or not you actually did it. If we spoon-feed it to you, the conversation works under the (false) assumption that you have read the decision. Instead, by making you do it on your own, you can show that you have actually looked at it because you will refer to the document even though it hasn't been directly indicated here.Discussion works so much better when people are referring to the actual case and not what some media talking head wants you to think about the case.

quote:

---

You're acting like you've already read all that stuff

---

Which I have. It's why I am able to quote from the decision. Since you clearly haven't read the decision, what makes you think you are in any position to discuss it?I'll handily "be a nice guy" for those who would actually do something with it. Instead, I have you.Have you bothered to read the decision? Or are you simply going to fume that I didn't do your homework for you?

quote:

---

You haven't shown me any reason to not trust it other than to take your word for it.

---

That's because I don't want you to take my word for it. I want you to look it up for yourself.I am not here to do your homework for you.

quote:

---

Given the track record of your honesty

---

Which is what, precisely? Be specific. Full quotes in complete context, please.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not comparing affirmative action to the holocaust.

---

Then why did you bring it up? If you didn't mean to compare affirmative action to the Holocaust, why did you bring up the Nuremberg Laws? Nobody else brought it up. You did. You clearly thought there was something to be gained by examining the Holocaust with regard to affirmative action. The only other possibility is that you suffered some sort of verbal break at that point and did not mean to write "Nuremberg Laws" when making your description?Is that what you're saying? You didn't mean to say "Nuremberg Laws"? You meant to write something completely different but somehow "Nuremberg Laws" slipped out?

quote:

---

I used the Nuremeberg Laws as an obvious example of how institutionalised racism is a terrible thing.

---

I guess you really did mean it.Affirmative action is comparable to the Holocaust.

quote:

---

Which of the above are you having difficulty with?

---

The part where it goes on to specifically and expressly deny the action which you are claiming it encourages: We can keep going around and around, if you wish.

quote:

---

How many other perfectly suitable candidates did Sotomayor step on to be where she is now?

---

Since she was a suitably qualified candidate (remember, her grades were such that any school in the country would have snapped her up in a second), your question assumes something that isn't true: That somehow Sotomayor shouldn't have been there.And that's precisely why we need affirmative action.

quote:

---

I've shown you people hurt because employers were taking Affirmative Action.

---

No, you haven't. What you've shown is people who were protected by the very law you're complaining about.If I tell you not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?

quote:

---

the Bakke case came to be because the U of M was taking Affirmative Action.

---

No, it didn't. The Bakke decision was from the 70s. The U of M action was in the 90s, nearly twenty years later. And when the students sued, they were protected because of the very law you are complaining about. Had that law not been there, then the students would not have had any recourse.

quote:

---

No, it's because your claim that AA was set up to protect white males is as ludicrous as claiming that the Nazi concetration camps were set up to protect the Jews!

---

You really like that comparison, don't you. Affirmative action is akin to the Holocaust.Right, because millions of people are dead because of affirmative action.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Legend responds to me (combining a couple posts):

quote:

---

the internet is as public and freely available as it gets.

---

Except it isn't. That's the point. One of the big reasons why the conversion from analog to digital television kept on getting pushed off had to do with access: Digital signals don't travel very far and thus people who don't live in heavily populated areas would suddenly lose access despite the fact that the signals are public and freely available.

quote:

---

I'm sure there's an equivalent system in the US.

---

No, there isn't. Oh, there's an unofficial ranking system. After all, there's a reason there are big name schools out there. But that simply means those big name schools have better marketing departments.US News and World Report does a yearly "ranking" of colleges and universities...and recently it was found out that they were gaming the system.So no, there is no such system here in the US. But at any rate, you haven't answered the question: What is the "objective" criteria that allows one to determine what the "best degree" is? How does one attain "1st class" status? And why is it impossible to achieve the same education at a "2nd class 1" institution?

quote:

---

Advertised vacancies have an associated skill set.

---

That doesn't answer the question. How does one "objectively" determine what those skills are?

quote:

---

Imagine if, instead, they had made their selection solely on the candidates' years of experience, previous orchestras, awards and other measurable and objective criteria

---

And thus, you miss the point: The judges were claiming precisely that. They weren't hiring him because he was a man. They were hiring him because of "years of experience, previous orchestras," etc. Oh, and he gave a better audition. The blind process took all of those false "objective" claims away.

quote:

---

I'd wager that the number of Hindus working in an abattoir wouldn't match the percentage of Hindus in the local population.

---

And what, precisely, would be the claim used by someone who has personal objections to working in a cattle slaughterhouse to indicate why they were discriminated against?

quote:

---

But we're not talking about quantifying *race* here, we're talking about quantifying *knowledge*, regardless of race.

---

I realize that you're in England, but is English not your first language? You have misunderstood the phrasing. At any rate, to claim that the quantification of intelligence in not bound up with notions of race and sex is to misunderstand the history of the phenomenon.

quote:

---

Am I a bigot, yes or no?

---

Given the justification provided in the example? Yes.Have you seen 9 to 5? There's a reason I chose that example the way I did.

I've already answered this in Message 120 as above. YOu even *quoted* my response in your last post. 'Bad' laws make people do 'bad' things. You're just pretending you don't understand in order to derail the debate. It really smacks of desparation.

quote:

---

the clause does not allow employers to have a policy of automatically treating people who share a protected characteristic more favourably than those who do not.

---

The reason YOU're going round and round is because YOU totally ignored my response in Message 117 where I explained how this paragraph states that you can't *AUTOMATICALLY* treat some people more favourably than others. I also explained that the *immediately preceding paragraph* states that in *INDIVIDUAL* cases you are welcome to treat some people more favourably than others. Still having difficulties?Perhaps I need to try another way. What this law says is:AUTOMATIC RACISM = BAD!
INDIVIDUAL RACISM = GOOD!A bit crude, I know, but maybe you'll be unable to ignore it this time! I'm not doubting that she was. I'm just asking how many other suitably qualified candidates competed against her and didn't get the job because they didn't belong to an ethnic minority. My question is just a question. You're just reading into it your own bias and prejudice.Unless the answer to my question above is a definitive "NONE" then you simply can't show me anyone who benefited from AA without it being at the expense of others!I, on the other hand, have shown you thousands who were denied opportunities *because* of AA. And that's precisely why people like you support affirmative action. You can sleep soundly in the self-righteous knowledge that you've indirectly helped some poor Latina become the Supreme Court Justice! Maybe that will ease off some of the guilt syndrome that the media have cleverly been laying upon you for decades. Hurray for AA! oops, my bad. I meant to say the University of California Medical School was taking Affirmative Action. Yes they would. They would have the legal precedent of the Bakke case. Of course, had that law not been there, the students wouldn't have been discriminated against in the first place and therefore wouldn't have the need for recourse!!QED.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

It be so much simpler to use links.The result for searching "Ricci" on the Supreme Court website is two one-page pdf's:http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-01428qp.pdfhttp://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/08-00328qp.pdfThose seem to be the questions, not the decision. Damn you're an asshole. This whole idea of yours that I won't read your link and that you can somehow make me read it by making me look it up is retarded and reeks of arrogance.I would have read it if you linked to it and now what I have read from following your directions, I don't think is what you were referring too.Your 'technique' blows. Its gotten us nowhere. Gimme a link to the decision and I'll read it. Everything that I have read has led me to believe that they were denied a promotion.If you can't provide me with something that says otherwise then I have no reason to believe you. I looked and I didn't find anything that supported your claim. Now who's doing whose homework? No, you're here to be an arrogant prick who trolls people that aren't on the Left. I don't have the full quotes, I'm just going by what I remember between you and Crashfrog and Holmes back in the day (and what Legend is finding out now). It took me a while to figure out why they hated you so much.Its because you won't listen to what people are actually saying, instead you take the words that you think they would be saying if they were against your position and then put them into their mouths. You're basically lying and saying that they said something that they didn't. Plus, with all the fake astonishment with the blinking n'shit, you're such an annoying little drama queen.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

'Bad' laws make people do 'bad' things.

---

So do good laws. If I tell you expressly and specifically not to do something and you do it anyway, how is that my fault?By your logic, since people keep breaking the law, all law must be bad and should be done away with.

quote:

---

The reason YOU're going round and round is because YOU totally ignored my response in quotas and the law (Message 117) where I explained how this paragraph states that you can't *AUTOMATICALLY* treat some people more favourably than others.

---

No, I don't ignore it. I keep pointing out that it destroys your argument. The very law you are upset about specifically and expressly denies the very action that is upsetting you. Since the law expressly criminalizes what you are complaining about, your justification doesn't make any sense.

quote:

---

I also explained that the *immediately preceding paragraph* states that in *INDIVIDUAL* cases you are welcome to treat some people more favourably than others. Still having difficulties?

---

Yes, because that isn't what it says. The legal caselaw surrounding it does not support your interpretation. The examples you have given all come back to the law actually protecting the people you are claiming are being discriminated against.

quote:

---

I'm not doubting that she was. I'm just asking how many other suitably qualified candidates competed against her and didn't get the job because they didn't belong to an ethnic minority.

---

Huh? If she were suitably qualified, what's the problem? You seem to be approaching this as if there were a "best possible" candidate, as if you could truly rank everybody with one and only one person at the very top. That cannot be done. So what is the problem with taking a person's background into account so that you can ensure a variety of backgrounds and opportunity?

quote:

---

Unless the answer to my question above is a definitive "NONE" then you simply can't show me anyone who benefited from AA without it being at the expense of others!

---

You do realize that because not everybody will be able to get into the school they applied to, there will always be people who lost out. So no, Sotomayor didn't step on anybody to be where she is right now. She was perfectly qualified. It isn't like Princeton gave up a slot to a student who couldn't hack it. They gave the slot to a student who was perfectly qualified. Since there are more applicants than students, someone is always going to lose out. There is no way to rank people first, second, third.

quote:

---

I, on the other hand, have shown you thousands who were denied opportunities *because* of AA.

---

No, you haven't. What you have shown is people who were able to find injunctive relief precisely because of the AA laws you are so upset about.If the AA laws did not exist, those people would not have had any recourse. Without the AA laws that specifically and expressly prohibit quotas, U of M could not have been successfully sued for establishing a quota system.

quote:

---

I meant to say the University of California Medical School was taking Affirmative Action.

---

But the decision was to slap the UC down. Do you not understand the point behind the judicial system at the appellate level? No law is ever crystal clear, every time, in every circumstance in which it might apply. There is always a question of what it actually means and whether or not this particular instance invokes previously established precedent. So there will always be a need for the appellate divisions of the judicial system to question what on earth a particular law actually means and how it ought to be applied in a specific case.But you seem to think that because the law needs to be explained, that makes it a "bad law" and that simply isn't true. All law needs to be explained.

quote:

---

Yes they would. They would have the legal precedent of the Bakke case.

---

Huh? You do realize that the Bakke case was about interpreting affirmative action law, yes? If we did not have affirmative action law, there would have been no Bakke decision. And without a Bakke decision, the U of M's policies could not have been shot down and the students would have had no recourse.

quote:

---

Of course, had that law not been there, the students wouldn't have been discriminated against in the first place and therefore wouldn't have the need for recourse!!

---

Huh? You mean the U of M couldn't have decided to do what they wanted to on their own? The law compelled them to do what they did? Where in any law anywhere do you see an admonition for institutions to establish quota systems?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

It be so much simpler to use links.

---

Not if I don't want to do your homework. It's much simpler for you to do your own homework. I want you to read the decision, therefore I'm not going to do the legwork for you. There is no royal road to knowledge. You have to do it yourself.

quote:

---

This whole idea of yours that I won't read your link

---

Well, you've shown yourself in the past that you won't actually read decisions (remember the IN RE case?) I provided a link and kept on quoting from the thing and that still didn't seem to be enough incentive to convince you to read it for yourself. Why should this time be any different? This time, I want you to quote from it. Show me that you've read it.Have you read it? This is at least the third time I've asked you that question and I find it telling that you haven't answered it yet.Despite having looked it up, you still haven't read it, have you?

quote:

---

I would have read it if you linked to it and now what I have read from following your directions, I don't think is what you were referring too.

---

I am not here to do your homework. Did you look in the "Opinions" section of the site? That is, after all, what we're looking for. It's the very first one because it was the most recent decision they made.Or here's an idea, go to FindLaw. Supreme Court, Civil Rights, and it's the first decision there.I am not here to do your homework for you.You still haven't bothered to read it, have you?

quote:

---

If you can't provide me with something that says otherwise then I have no reason to believe you.

---

I've quoted the decision already. If you're going to say that I erred in that quotation, you're going to have to read the decision and show me where I went wrong.You have read the decision, haven't you? It was the first thing you did before you decided to jump into a conversation about what the decision meant, right? You didn't just listen to a bunch of media talking heads whom have proven themselves time and time again to be incapable of doing actual analysis to tell you what the decision meant, did you?You did your own homework, right?I don't want to hear your reaction to what I think the decision means. I want to hear your reaction to the actual decision. Quote it to me so that you can justify your claim with what the Supreme Court actually said. I've quoted it to you. Now it's your turn to read the decision and find where it justifies your position.That requires you to have read it. Have you? Or are you just going to sit and fume that I'm not doing your homework?

quote:

---

I looked and I didn't find anything that supported your claim.

---

But you haven't read the decision. So how do you justify that?

quote:

---

Its because you won't listen to what people are actually saying

---

Considering that my posting style tends to be to quote every single word of the person I'm responding to, this is a bit laughable. I quote your own words back to you and you claim I'm not listening?

quote:

---

instead you take the words that you think they would be saying if they were against your position and then put them into their mouths. You're basically lying and saying that they said something that they didn't.

---

Huh? How am I "lying and saying that they said something that they didn't" if the only thing I ever do is quote people's words back to them?

quote:

---

Plus, with all the fake astonishment with the blinking n'shit, you're such an annoying little drama queen.

---

(*chuckle*)I'm truly sorry about your penis. But since you seem to think I make stuff up about people, let me quote your own words back to you: Is there a reason you expect other people to live up to a standard you refuse to abide by yourself?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd wager that the number of Hindus working in an abattoir wouldn't match the percentage of Hindus in the local population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And what, precisely, would be the claim used by someone who has personal objections to working in a cattle slaughterhouse to indicate why they were discriminated against?A Hindu would in general be unwilling to work in an abbatoir, whatever animal is slaughtered, hence their reduced numbers in such places.Second. If a Hindu has objections he would simply not apply for an abbatoir job. Period.

RCS responds to me:

quote:

---

A Hindu would in general be unwilling to work in an abbatoir, whatever animal is slaughtered, hence their reduced numbers in such places.

​

Second. If a Hindu has objections he would simply not apply for an abbatoir job. Period.

---

That's my point. Finding a disproportionate number of people in a field that is based upon self-selection against it is not discrimination and any attempts to claim discrimination on such a basis would be laughed out of court.Legend seems to be indicating that the court system is filled with idiots.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain,
I understand why you are saying this here but I don't think that what the media has said about the promotions is entirely false.

quote:

---

Do you know how the promotion system works? Did you read the decision, because it describes it. Passing the test does not get you promoted.

---

The test does not get you the promotion but it is required. It is necessary but not sufficient. Since you must have the test to have the promotion then if you don't have the test you can't get the promotion. It seems that by tossing the test then the candidates must not have received the promotions.It seem reasonable for someone to think that the firefighters were denied a promotion based on the very first paragraph of the document published by the court:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf While it is true that the exam doesn't grant the promotion in general in this particular case it would have since the candidates would have been eligible for an immediate promotion: Anyway, the upshot is that I don't think that the common view that the firefighters were denied promotion because the exam was tossed out is completely incorrect. In fact I think it reasonably describes the final result of having discarded the test.

Nah, you're wrong. You could have easily supplied me with the link, 9 days ago, and the discussion could have been that much further along. Instead you'd rather play your stupid game and we've gotten nowhere. But I did answer it. I didn't get to that actual decision. I would have read it a week ago had you just provided the link. 10 seconds on the SCOTUS website didn't provide the decision like you said it would. I've finally found the decision, though, and have read through most of it.You've claimed that the firefighter weren't denied promotions...From the decision: (hey look how easy it is to link to what I'm actually quoting so that other people can read it too and since I was already there reading it, its not like I had to do any extra homework or anything, I just had to copy and paste the url, you're idea that this someone makes people learn less is ridiculous)

quote:

---

Certain white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their good test per-formance sued the City and some of its officials. Theirs is the suit now before us. The suit alleges that, by discard-ing the test results, the City and the named officials dis-criminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, inviolation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment. The City and the officials defended their actions, arguing that if they had certified the results, they could have faced liability under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on the minority firefighters. The District Court granted summary judgment for thedefendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

​

We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. The respondents, we further determine, cannot meet that threshold standard. As a result, the City’s action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII. In light of our ruling under the statutes, we need not reach the question whether respon-dents’ actions may have violated the Equal ProtectionClause.

---

So they likely would have been promoted but they weren't. I suppose technically they weren't actually denied the promotion, because they weren't offered it in the first place, but we can see that you're just splitting hairs there and the firefighter, indeed, did not get their promotions because of the impermissible action of the City. And those actions came about because of the City's fears of causing a disparate impact which is a direct result of AA law.So your point was that they weren't technically denied the promotion, and you go out of your way to not provide evidence that this is the case so that you can continue to dress up AA laws and being great, but really you're splitting a minor hair to avoid having to see that the AA laws do have problems. lets look at what you actually wrote and to what I originally responded to : So you're saying that because they weren't technically denied a promotion, then they weren't discriminated against but the decision says they violated Title VII, which is about discrimination.In Message 129, you wrote: as if to paint some fancy picture of AA, but if it weren't for AA in the first place, then the U of M wouldn't have made quotas, and the City of New Haven wouldn't have feared promoting the firefighters. If the law is causing that which it was set up to prevent, then there's something wrong with it. You went wrong where you spin you opponents claim so that you can take a lesser position and make it look like you're actually arguing against the person, when actually you're talking about something different. And you use obscurity to hide your dishonesty. You try to use my words in whatever way possible, twisting them to mean something totally different than what I meant them to mean, so that you can force me into a different postion, then take a stance against this invented position. You then make obscure claims against that invented position, that happen to sound like the original one, and avoid actually exposing where you have spun my original position. At first, you just come off as a moron who can't understand people, but the level of cleverness needed to do it makes me realize that your actaully intentionally being dishonest. See? Right there. I don't expect anyone to live up to a standard that I refuse to abide by. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.We can also see from Legends posts how bad you are:

quote:

---

It isn't and I never claimed that it was! I can only assume one of three things happening here:
1) you are deliberately misrepresenting what I write
2) you don't bother reading what I write
3) You are so consumed by your ideology that you think this is what I must be writing despite what I actually write.

​

This is what I actually wrote:

​

...

​

...is it that you can't read or is it that you won't read?

​

...

​

ugh? where did I say that.

​

...

​

Listen, if you really want me to increase the font size don't be afraid to ask, ok?

​

...

​

?!....[bangs head against wall]......but that's what I've been saying all along

​

...

​

ugh?? how the hell did you infer that this means that "AA goes to quotas"?! I must have stated at least a dozen times in this thread that there are many ways to apply AA and quotas is one of the most obvious ones. Argue what I write not what you think I write!

---

and on and on.You suck.

I wasn't actually talking about classification of academic institutions I was talking about classification of degrees. A 1st class degree is achieved if the student scores more than 70% in their overall grades for their degree. If they score 60-70% they get a 2-1 degree, 50-60% is a 2-2 and so on and so forth. Although there are subjective perceptions about the credibility and standard of certain institutions, generally speaking a 1st is considered a better degree than a 2-1, and a 2-1 better than a 2-2. So, if two people have the same-subject degree, the person with the 2-1 will get more 'selection points' than the person with the 2-2. This is why some companies only accept applications from candidates with 2-1 or above. Because they have some objective and universal means of measuring a candidates's value and potential.Now you tell me, what is the objective and univerally accepted process for awarding 'disadvantage points'? Are there degrees of disadvantage? 1st class disadvantaged, 2nd class disadvantaged, etc? It goes like this: a set of people already familiar with the job sit down and produce what is known as a 'job description'. This outlines, amongst other things, the skills and qualifications a candidate needs to have in order to be able to fulfill the advertised role. Then during the selection process candidates are matched against the required skill-set and qualifications. N.B: the job description makes no mention of race, colour or ethnicity.Now you tell me, how does one determine how disadvantaged a candidate should be in order to be selected? How can I determine if someone is adequately 'disadvantaged' for the job? Noone is suggesting that someone who has personal objections to working in a cattle slaughterhouse should claim they were discriminated against. You stated that employers demographics should match the demographics of the general population. I've given you a crude example of why this *is not, can not and must not* be the case!BTW, you still haven't shown me why there's a reason for employer demographics to reflect population demographics. You're just re-iterating this notion that it should be so, like some kind of high ideal that all should adhere and aspire to. And then you act all shocked when I suggest you have fascist tendencies. I understand that but -like I mentioned in my previous post- we're not talking about quantification of intelligence, we're talking about quantification of knowledge. thanks for finally replying. One more question please:If I claim that:"It's the employer's position, so they decide who would be best for it regardless of your approval and if that means a gay person ('Because the director thinks gay people make better actors'), then it's just tough noogies."Am I a bigot, yes or no?Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"