Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2014, 01:04 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 12:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your pathetic thread implied that people who are discriminated against should just wait until the prejudices of society fell away

WTF?! Did you even read what I wrote? I hold Rosa Parks up as a hero for NOT just sitting around waiting for society to change, but putting her neck out to make change happen.

The fact is politicians are democratically elected to execute the will of the majority. If 90% of the population is opposed to something, they're NOT going to elect someone who will do it anyway. Therefore, it's inevitable that the REAL progress always comes first from the people, winning over hearts and minds, and the government follows. If you disagree, why are you refusing to touch the subject of affirmative action for gays? It's because we're right in the middle of that transition to end prejudice and enough time hasn't passed for the history books to be written and credit government with the change. Since we're in the middle of it, you can see as well as I government didn't cause the change--the people did. But in a few decades you'll have forgotten about that and just keep repeating the spin that the government stepped in and saved gay people.

(01-01-2014 12:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  2. I made NO such statement. You totally made up that fucking lie, you asshole.
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. YOU are the one who devalued the work of those who insisted the government act.

I did NOT put words in your mouth at all. My OP stated "the tides were already turning" and "Racism was becoming less and less acceptable". I said that even without intervention, the civil rights leaders WERE making headway in winning over hearts and minds and that if they had continued to make such progress, they would have eventually won the battle against racism.

YOU insisted I was wrong. Therefore, you DID most definitely insist that the civil rights leaders had FAILED and were NOT making progress. I guess when I played your words back to you they sounded a lot more offensive so you tried to backpeddle. But the thread is clear. You absolutely went on record stating that segregation wouldn't have ended had the government not stepped in. You didn't say it would have taken longer, you said it wouldn't have happened without government intervention. That clearly means in your mind the civil rights leaders weren't making any progress in ending segregation, because if they were, it would have ended eventually anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
01-01-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
There shouldn't be affirmative action for any group of people if by affirmative action you mean any kind of quota system being used to make selection decisions.

What there should be is strong non-discrimination laws with rigorous enforcement in the areas of housing, education, public accommodations, and employment. Equal protection of the law would be an absolute must. Employers and educators should have outreach programs designed to recruit underrepresented minorities, but hiring off of quotas does more harm than good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 05:22 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 09:29 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: BnW, should there be affirmative action for gays that requires companies to hire x% of gays, and mandates x% of high school prom kings/queens must be gay, etc?

Hell with that. Queers I know don't need no help. They are every bit as capable as GirlyMan. More so even. They're just looking for public recognition of their mutual commitment. That's fucking all. And in Maryland they get it. .... Can't wait to go to my sister-in-law/sister-in-laws. I'm gonna make sure it's fabulous.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 08:02 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Frank is right the culture made the change then the politicians (even the conservative ones) jumped on the bandwagon.

Frank I noticed that you appealed to civil right leaders changing minds in society. It started me thinking how do leaders fit in the libertarian framework? Isn't there a tendency to idolize these leaders in a way that allows for them to centralize power? And is there a correlation between religion and a centralized power scheme?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 08:02 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Frank is right the culture made the change then the politicians (even the conservative ones) jumped on the bandwagon.

Frank I noticed that you appealed to civil right leaders changing minds in society. It started me thinking how do leaders fit in the libertarian framework? Isn't there a tendency to idolize these leaders in a way that allows for them to centralize power? And is there a correlation between religion and a centralized power scheme?

No, Frank is not right. Some segments of society had moved forward, but change in the South required force of law and of arms. Nothing would have changed there for decades without that. It was already a century since the Civil War and the only thing that had changed was that there wasn't de jure slavery. Oh, right - that took federal law and arms, as well.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Society will change the rules and laws as well as norms for this as time goes on and as values differ between the generations, forcing it when there is still a lot of opposition will only delay this change.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
I don't think I like affirmative action for things that should be merit-based. But I think it could be useful for providing opportunities to show merit. Does that make sense? It's late and I'm not exactly sure how to describe what I'm thinking, I just know there are a lot of people out there who don't even get the chance to prove themselves, you know? So some affirmative action for opportunity could be helpful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 08:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  change in the South required force of law and of arms. Nothing would have changed there for decades without that. It was already a century since the Civil War and the only thing that had changed was that there wasn't de jure slavery. Oh, right - that took federal law and arms, as well.

I love this reply because it demonstrates so well the difference between liberals and libertarians. You refuse to even consider the possibility that there MIGHT be solutions that don't involve 'law and arms'. It's not that you discredit them or find flaws in them. You don't even consider them.

Starting with the civil war. Washington DC got rid of slavery by buying the slaves at $300/each. Originally they proposed the same for the southern states, and had negotiations with the southern governors and slave owners, but they were holding out for $1,100/each, which meant it would have cost $5 billion, and the government said it was too expensive. Instead we got a civil war that cost MORE money, resulted in millions of dead and maimed, unimaginable suffering from grieving parents, lonely women who couldn't find mates. And it set the country back by diverting all attention to war for many years, and who knows how many Einstein's were among the soldiers killed. Sure, it would have been painful to see southern slave owners get $5 billion for their actions, but what would have been better for society? Giving them $5 billion, which they would have had to spend investing in innovative machinery to replace their lost labor, building factories, and hiring blacks as machine operators, or spending MORE than that blowing each other up? Like all liberals and conservatives I know, you insist the only viable solution was war. But it's not that you've seriously considered what might have been with the peaceful alternative. To you, peace is not an option.

Same thing with the civil rights movement. Just off the top of my head, the President could have called a meeting with wealthy northern entrepreneurs, who saw the backwards segregation in the south as a stain on the country. He could have persuaded them to pool their resources and build a dozen of the best black schools. Pay the teachers double, so there's a brain drain and the best teachers leave the all-white schools. Give them the newest and best equipment, and buses, and athletics. Strive to have the highest SAT scores in your all-black schools. And try to get some Hollywood liberals to make a compelling TV series about life in the south, about black students going to these schools, moving on to Harvard, and breaking free of the backwards, redneck town. Get the whites to see blacks as the smart kids on the block and beg for an end to segregation so they can send their kids to these schools. You cannot possibly say if this approach would have been as effective as sending in Federal Marshals. Nobody will know since it wasn't tried.

But the key here is you won't even consider peaceful alternatives. No matter what the problem, there is one and only one solution: “federal law and arms”

When I was in high school in the late 80's in a redneck small-town, there was one day when a new, openly gay student came. He didn't make it a day. Rumor has he was beaten up. All I know is nobody saw him the next day. Sure, having Federal Marshals escort him may have been one solution. But, it's quite possible it would have stirred up even more animosity and hatred, setting the gay acceptance back even further.

Nobody has a crystal ball to play these what-if scenarios. But what pisses me off is that you're not even willing to consider any scenarios that don't involve violence, or as you put it: “federal law and arms”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 09:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 08:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  change in the South required force of law and of arms. Nothing would have changed there for decades without that. It was already a century since the Civil War and the only thing that had changed was that there wasn't de jure slavery. Oh, right - that took federal law and arms, as well.

I love this reply because it demonstrates so well the difference between liberals and libertarians. You refuse to even consider the possibility that there MIGHT be solutions that don't involve 'law and arms'. It's not that you discredit them or find flaws in them. You don't even consider them.

Starting with the civil war. Washington DC got rid of slavery by buying the slaves at $300/each. Originally they proposed the same for the southern states, and had negotiations with the southern governors and slave owners, but they were holding out for $1,100/each, which meant it would have cost $5 billion, and the government said it was too expensive. Instead we got a civil war that cost MORE money, resulted in millions of dead and maimed, unimaginable suffering from grieving parents, lonely women who couldn't find mates. And it set the country back by diverting all attention to war for many years, and who knows how many Einstein's were among the soldiers killed. Sure, it would have been painful to see southern slave owners get $5 billion for their actions, but what would have been better for society? Giving them $5 billion, which they would have had to spend investing in innovative machinery to replace their lost labor, building factories, and hiring blacks as machine operators, or spending MORE than that blowing each other up? Like all liberals and conservatives I know, you insist the only viable solution was war. But it's not that you've seriously considered what might have been with the peaceful alternative. To you, peace is not an option.

Same thing with the civil rights movement. Just off the top of my head, the President could have called a meeting with wealthy northern entrepreneurs, who saw the backwards segregation in the south as a stain on the country. He could have persuaded them to pool their resources and build a dozen of the best black schools. Pay the teachers double, so there's a brain drain and the best teachers leave the all-white schools. Give them the newest and best equipment, and buses, and athletics. Strive to have the highest SAT scores in your all-black schools. And try to get some Hollywood liberals to make a compelling TV series about life in the south, about black students going to these schools, moving on to Harvard, and breaking free of the backwards, redneck town. Get the whites to see blacks as the smart kids on the block and beg for an end to segregation so they can send their kids to these schools. You cannot possibly say if this approach would have been as effective as sending in Federal Marshals. Nobody will know since it wasn't tried.

But the key here is you won't even consider peaceful alternatives. No matter what the problem, there is one and only one solution: “federal law and arms”

When I was in high school in the late 80's in a redneck small-town, there was one day when a new, openly gay student came. He didn't make it a day. Rumor has he was beaten up. All I know is nobody saw him the next day. Sure, having Federal Marshals escort him may have been one solution. But, it's quite possible it would have stirred up even more animosity and hatred, setting the gay acceptance back even further.

Nobody has a crystal ball to play these what-if scenarios. But what pisses me off is that you're not even willing to consider any scenarios that don't involve violence, or as you put it: “federal law and arms”

Peaceful means were tried for a fucking century after the Civil War. How many more decades of mistreatment would be OK? You are blinded by ideology.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 10:28 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 08:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 08:02 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Frank is right the culture made the change then the politicians (even the conservative ones) jumped on the bandwagon.

Frank I noticed that you appealed to civil right leaders changing minds in society. It started me thinking how do leaders fit in the libertarian framework? Isn't there a tendency to idolize these leaders in a way that allows for them to centralize power? And is there a correlation between religion and a centralized power scheme?

No, Frank is not right. Some segments of society had moved forward, but change in the South required force of law and of arms. Nothing would have changed there for decades without that. It was already a century since the Civil War and the only thing that had changed was that there wasn't de jure slavery. Oh, right - that took federal law and arms, as well.

He doesn't care as it doesn't affect HIM. But do something that DOES affect him, (Affordable Care Act), watch him squeal.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: