Affirmative Action

[CARLHAYDEN]

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

Blacks are a greater percentage of the NFL, and NBA players than their distribution in the general population.

If we merely use such statistic evidence of 'discrimination' by race and the basis for 'affirmative action,' then do we need to force the professional teams to hire more whites and fire more blacks?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks again,

I would really  appreciate feedback on my posting in the 200 U.S. Presidential election board, 2004 User Prediction - Discussion thread, page 157.

Apparently the lefties either haven't read it, or don't know how to respond to that post.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Once again, you missed the point.

Also, your knowledge of intents is fascinating.

Just where do you get you ability to divine intents?

To reiterate my point, previously made in what I consider a pithy and humorous style (which you profess to have misunderstood).

People should be judged on their individual merits, NOT their race.

We should not assume racial discrimination based on percentages nor mandate results based on race.

So, put away your mysticism and subject changing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Perhaps the line between humorous and annoyingly crass is one that does not reveal itself to you easily, but trust me, when it comes to tossing off the bon mots, you're no Dorothy Parker.

Again, you do not understand (or at least profess not to understand).

I merely placed your discriminatory program in a context which you do not like because it illustrated the absurdity of your program.

Have you given up your reading of intent yet?

I note no answer on this point.

[CARLHAYDEN]

John,

You've got to understand that when you point out the factual inaccuracies, logical inconsistencies and bizarre ethics on which Migrendel posts he has a fit.

You see, Migrendel doesn't work well with logic or facts since he divines intents, and gets 'annoyed' with those who correct him in these matters, alleging that their corrections are simply, 'grievances' and pointing out those problems 'rude' postings.

I frequently ignore his postings as other posters frequently deal very effectively with his posturings.  Vis, Bandit really thrashed him with respect to NAMBA on another thread.