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, 10:46 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

And why do you think it was that in the US, where slaves were freed at gunpoint through a bloody civil war, a century later blacks were still virtual slaves, shot for disobeying a white man, raped, hanged, tortured, segregated? Yet, in other countries where slaves were freed at the same time through peaceful means, generally by buying the slaves' freedom, they didn't have such deep filled hatred and animosity towards blacks? Hmmmm...

In my opinion, you (collectively referring to the pro-violence side) CAUSED the problem. If the North had accepted the South's offer and paid $5 billion to free all the slaves, not only would it have saved the North an estimated $10 billion (according to this studyby a Harvard Economist), but, instead of leaving the south in complete ruins with all their infrastructure destroyed, the South would have been infused with a large amount of capital to invest in new, modern infrastructure.

Poverty and violence breeds intolerance and hatred. The fact that the South was reduced to a destitute, smoking pile of rubble, left in shambles, all because the North refused to pay the market value for what Southerners viewed as their 'property', imo, that fostered the animosity and hatred that led to Jim Crow laws and the oppression of the South. If, instead, the North had left the South wealthy and prosperous, and both sides put their efforts into advancing civilization and not killing each other, imo, the South wouldn't have become such a backwards, racist, hate-filled place.

But you're not even willing to consider any solution that doesn't involve violence. Why not try? Compare the 'buy slaves freedom' vs the 'fight a civil war', with pros and cons. I listed the pros of the former and the cons of the latter. Now you try. List the 'pros' to spending $10 billion fighting a civil war and killing and maiming millions vs. spending $5 billion to buy their freedom.

I can safely predict, as always, you'll run from the challenge. You'll refuse to weigh the pros and cons in a pragmatic manner. You'll refuse to even consider what might have been with a peaceful alternative. You'll just continue to insist that 'federal law and arms' was and is the only solution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
01-01-2014, 10:46 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 10:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

And why do you think it was that in the US, where slaves were freed at gunpoint through a bloody civil war, a century later blacks were still virtual slaves, shot for disobeying a white man, raped, hanged, tortured, segregated? Yet, in other countries where slaves were freed at the same time through peaceful means, generally by buying the slaves' freedom, they didn't have such deep filled hatred and animosity towards blacks? Hmmmm...

In my opinion, you (collectively referring to the pro-violence side) CAUSED the problem. If the North had accepted the South's offer and paid $5 billion to free all the slaves, not only would it have saved the North an estimated $10 billion (according to this studyby a Harvard Economist), but, instead of leaving the south in complete ruins with all their infrastructure destroyed, the South would have been infused with a large amount of capital to invest in new, modern infrastructure.

Poverty and violence breeds intolerance and hatred. The fact that the South was reduced to a destitute, smoking pile of rubble, left in shambles, all because the North refused to pay the market value for what Southerners viewed as their 'property', imo, that fostered the animosity and hatred that led to Jim Crow laws and the oppression of the South. If, instead, the North had left the South wealthy and prosperous, and both sides put their efforts into advancing civilization and not killing each other, imo, the South wouldn't have become such a backwards, racist, hate-filled place.

But you're not even willing to consider any solution that doesn't involve violence. Why not try? Compare the 'buy slaves freedom' vs the 'fight a civil war', with pros and cons. I listed the pros of the former and the cons of the latter. Now you try. List the 'pros' to spending $10 billion fighting a civil war and killing and maiming millions vs. spending $5 billion to buy their freedom.

I can safely predict, as always, you'll run from the challenge. You'll refuse to weigh the pros and cons in a pragmatic manner. You'll refuse to even consider what might have been with a peaceful alternative. You'll just continue to insist that 'federal law and arms' was and is the only solution.

You may or may not be right about the Civil War, but that is not the discussion.
The Civil War happened. A century later, force was required to end the segregation.

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
02-01-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Don't know much about it, but I think AA can be used to bridge the initial gap. But should be only a temporary solution and should be done away with as soon as possible to make room for a real meritocracy.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
As a rule, most people would admit of a thing called nuance. Morally we call it utilitarianism.

The question being, "is the harm done by forcibly preventing the worst overt discrimination and oppression counterbalanced by the harm lessened by preventing said oppression"?

Possible answers being "yes" and "no".

Incidentally, I am not sure that "well, we asked him not to" is much consolation to the people mistreated by the likes of George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Been busy the past few days and just realized there was a thread set up just for me. I have no idea why but I'll respond.

No, I don't believe there should be gay affirmative action. I have no idea what the relevance is of that question to anything that was discussed previously, though. Discrimination and affirmative action are two different things.

Btw, I have not read all 4 pages so if there is something specific I'm supposed to be looking at, please direct me towards it and I will. Also, please note that vacation is over so if the plan here is to engage me in another ongoing long debate, that plan is going to fail as I don't have the time to keep up with it. I'll do the best I can, though.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
frank as a child : Tongue

[Image: 120409_cartoon_055_a16605_p465.gif]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-01-2014, 08:49 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2014 09:44 PM by WindyCityJazz.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
I haven't read through the thread, but the idea of such a thing is kind of ridiculous. Unlike skin color or gender, anybody could blatantly lie about being gay. I'm all for gay rights in every aspect, but employment practices are nearly impossible to prove to be anti-gay. What do we do? Go to businesses and say "Excuse me, but you do not have enough gays working here. You need to match the gay quota."?

If a person is gay and can prove that they are being unfairly discriminated against because they are gay, then they have every right to turn around and sue the guilty party, and that's about as far as it goes.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  your illusions that government can do nothing good...

How many times do I need to pound this into your thick skull. I have NEVER been against government. I've been against violence. Read my posts where I talked about how GOVERNMENT, by stepping and stopping violence in the 17th century, transformed civilization almost overnight. I ONLY speak against government when government is initiating violence, and I am no more against government initiating violence than against a private party doing it. Unlike you, I treat all humans as equal. Violence is violence whether it's perpetrated by a police or a thug.

Therefore, your statement is “your illusions that VIOLENCE can do nothing good...” And the reason why I have reached this conclusion is that I've debated political issues hundreds of times, and every time someone defends government violence, it ends up being that they never considered the alternative.

The #1 instance where non-libertarians defend the use of violence is the civil war. They also rate Lincoln as being the best President, whereas libertarians typically rate him the worst and most tyrannical. When I ask the Lincoln/civil-war defenders if they approved of Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and imprisoning or exiling journalists who criticized him as well as his political opponents, the reaction is 'uh, I didn't know that'. When I ask if Lincoln made the right decision to spend $10 billion on the civil war and leave the South a destitute, steaming pile of rubble when he had the opportunity to spend $5 billion and buy the slaves freedom, I get the same blank stare. Then when I ask if the South would have ended up having so many poor, ignorant, backwards, hate filled, racist communities if Lincoln hadn't decimated them, the answer is 'I didn't think of that'.

As Winston Churchill said, 'history is written by the victors.' So, of course, every time the government uses violence the history books will talk about how great it was. You know in N. Korea the history books will read how the great Kim Jung Un heroically defeated his traitor uncle who sought to undermine the people's revolution.

So, if you're going to dispute my position that “violence can do nothing good”, come up with an instance where violence was used where you're willing to debate the pros and cons of it vs. a peaceful alternative and be willing to answer 'what might have been' if we didn't use violence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2014 09:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  your illusions that government can do nothing good...

How many times do I need to pound this into your thick skull. I have NEVER been against government. I've been against violence. Read my posts where I talked about how GOVERNMENT, by stepping and stopping violence in the 17th century, transformed civilization almost overnight. I ONLY speak against government when government is initiating violence, and I am no more against government initiating violence than against a private party doing it. Unlike you, I treat all humans as equal. Violence is violence whether it's perpetrated by a police or a thug.

Therefore, your statement is “your illusions that VIOLENCE can do nothing good...” And the reason why I have reached this conclusion is that I've debated political issues hundreds of times, and every time someone defends government violence, it ends up being that they never considered the alternative.

The #1 instance where non-libertarians defend the use of violence is the civil war. They also rate Lincoln as being the best President, whereas libertarians typically rate him the worst and most tyrannical. When I ask the Lincoln/civil-war defenders if they approved of Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and imprisoning or exiling journalists who criticized him as well as his political opponents, the reaction is 'uh, I didn't know that'. When I ask if Lincoln made the right decision to spend $10 billion on the civil war and leave the South a destitute, steaming pile of rubble when he had the opportunity to spend $5 billion and buy the slaves freedom, I get the same blank stare. Then when I ask if the South would have ended up having so many poor, ignorant, backwards, hate filled, racist communities if Lincoln hadn't decimated them, the answer is 'I didn't think of that'.

As Winston Churchill said, 'history is written by the victors.' So, of course, every time the government uses violence the history books will talk about how great it was. You know in N. Korea the history books will read how the great Kim Jung Un heroically defeated his traitor uncle who sought to undermine the people's revolution.

So, if you're going to dispute my position that “violence can do nothing good”, come up with an instance where violence was used where you're willing to debate the pros and cons of it vs. a peaceful alternative and be willing to answer 'what might have been' if we didn't use violence.

As usual.
YOU putting words in my mouth, then you debating the lies you make me tell.
How boring. You really can't help yourself, can you ?
You can make up anything you like, and say I said it.
You are as intellectually dishonest as anyone I have ever known.
Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:47 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 10:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  You may or may not be right about the Civil War, but that is not the discussion.
The Civil War happened. A century later, force was required to end the segregation.

Chas, thank you for admitting the possibility that maybe things would have been better had we not fought a bloody civil war that destroyed the South's infrastructure and left them in shambles. When discussing civil rights, I think the civil war is more clear-cut that violence was the bad option. When you lay out the pros and cons of a war vs. buying the slave's freedom for half the cost of the war, it's hard to justify the war.

A century later, when the South was what it was, I agree with you there were no obvious solutions, and the matter isn't so black and white. I disagree with you that the government had tried peaceful solutions before resorting to Federal Marshals. I don't see in the history books that the Federal government made any serious attempt to rid the South of racism before the 50's and 60's. I also think the civil rights leaders had made tremendous progress in winning over hearts and minds and the tide was turning against racism, so segregation would have eventually ended on its own anyway. Regardless, I hope you'll keep an open mind and admit that it's impossible to know how things would have turned out if the government had tried peaceful means, like the one I mentioned about making the black schools the best in the country so whites WANTED to end segregation and be able to attend. But I don't think it's fair to say that 'federal law and arms' was the ONLY way given that other approaches weren't even tried.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: