Landmark night for civil rights

[MakeItRain]

i'm fine with anti-discrimination laws, i just see nic's point.

on the flip side though, do you believe minorities should be given preference on things, like say scholarships?  i'm going to guess you say yes, but how is that not discrimination too?  yeah, it has a good purpose, but if a determining factor is race or heritage, seems like you are picking and choosing your discrimination.

I must be thick because I don't know how anyone can understand the point of "people should be able to discriminate against anyone if they want to" but then acknowledge that no one in the history of this country has ever been afforded that right.  It's incongruous to what the country is.

Also why would you "guess I would say yes" to the question of whether or not minorities should be given preference like say scholarships?  I really want an answer to this question, it isn't rhetorical.  Every post I've made in this thread has been in the name of equality, so why would you think I'd take an inequitable stance here?

because you're super liberal guy.  liberals are generally supportive of affirmative action programs.

i was asking to get your answer, sorry if my assumption was incorrect.

1. That's an assumption and an odd one in the context of this thread.  Discrimination has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.
2. What you described and what you and Jakesie are discussing is not affirmative action.

i would say having race even be a factor in scholarships is discrimination, so it's well within the context of the thread.  you still haven't answered the question, so i don't know if my assumption is correct or not.  i asked simply because i want to know if you approve of other levels of discrimination, as long as minorities are the benefactor (as jakesie, and probably a lot of people, seem to think is alright).

i'm not trying to get into some sort of reverse discrimination debate, just wondering if your position is consistent.

If you're asking if I believe in affirmative action, the answer is yes; but you have not illustrated an example of affirmative action.

[star seed 7]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

[MakeItRain]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

[Bloodfart]

MIR if the government made laws to protect everyone from being denied services, housing, food, then you end up with communism, right? 


 I am a tard take it easy on me.

[star seed 7]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

i won't deny that you are more intelligent when it comes to putting words together, it's not one of my strong points.  give me a math problem and i'll solve the rough rider, but writing a paper is pure hell for me.

i wasn't saying anything about being on basis of race alone, so my question now is why do you think race should have any factor in scholarships?  i'm not trying to "catch" you.

[MakeItRain]

MIR if the government made laws to protect everyone from being denied services, housing, food, then you end up with communism, right? 


 I am a tard take it easy on me.

not even worth a response

[Bloodfart]

MIR if the government made laws to protect everyone from being denied services, housing, food, then you end up with communism, right? 


 I am a tard take it easy on me.

not even worth a response

[nicname]

Any thing that either rewards or denies a person something is discrimination, regardless or reason.

Obv. homosexuality or gender are not races, but biological factors. 

I would lump racial, gender, etc.  into a category called "biological discrimination"

Most people believe that this type of discrimination is wrong.  Some don't. 

The problem comes when we get into a discussion of rights and liberty.

MIR used the Thomas Jefferson quote "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This stems from an earlier phrase that originally voiced these three things as rights of the highest order, "unalienable rights" meaning no one can take them away with out just cause ie. you are a criminal.  The earlier phrase also listed property instead of happiness, but that is unimportant to what I'm arguing.

The key term in the phrase is pursuit.  No person is allowed to use force to impede another persons pursuit of their goal. Denying someone the voluntary exchange of goods or time is not stopping them from pursuing those goods, it is simply not allowing them to force action on the denier, which itself is using force to deny someone their pursuit of voluntary exchange. 

[nicname]

Also, maybe a mod could move this discussion to a different thread.  This thread was supposed to be about celebrating liberty, not arguing over what constitutes.  My fault.

[star seed 7]

nicname 

[MakeItRain]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

i won't deny that you are more intelligent when it comes to putting words together, it's not one of my strong points.  give me a math problem and i'll solve the rough rider, but writing a paper is pure hell for me.

i wasn't saying anything about being on basis of race alone, so my question now is why do you think race should have any factor in scholarships?  i'm not trying to "catch" you.

I have no problem with race being a factor when awarding scholarships and that isn't a hypocritical stance.  When you first posed the question I was thinking about specific scholarships for training for specific industries like scholarships for black engineers made to well attract more black engineers to attempt diversify the field.  However, the more I think about it I'm also okay with general scholarships being awarded on the basis of race and here's why.  There are people still very alive, like baby boomers who had to fight for the right to attend public universities.  We are just a generation or two away from when college admission could be denied because of the color of your skin.  And yes there were/are black universities but then and to a somewhat lesser extent today achieving a degree from those places were viewed by the white power structure as inferior.  There need to be some things to balance the wrong of long time institutional discrimination.  You can't just change a law and snap your fingers and expect instant equality.  As far as higher education goes I think that there needs to be steps taken, like allowing race to be a factor in awarding certain scholarships, to help generations of minorities hurt and still recovering from institutional wrongs.  If you haven't seen the current 30 for 30, Ghosts of Mississippi, check it out it will shed some light on this very topic.

This is how I feel about scholarships.  I don't believe that a black landlord should be able to discriminate against white people.  I don't believe in hiring or admissions quotas either.

[star seed 7]

yes, i've seen the ghosts of ole miss, and it was excellent.

for the record, i mostly agree with you, but i also don't have strong feelings on the matter.

my whole problem was the way you, and others, berated and basically discounted nicname as a bigot because of his view.  he places more priority on personal liberty than righting the wrongs of the past (at least that's how i took it).  you stated that your position is all about equality, and then name multiple instances where you place one group over another.  to say he has absolutely no basis for his view and to call him racist/bigoted seemed intentionally obtuse to me. 

[nicname]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

i won't deny that you are more intelligent when it comes to putting words together, it's not one of my strong points.  give me a math problem and i'll solve the rough rider, but writing a paper is pure hell for me.

i wasn't saying anything about being on basis of race alone, so my question now is why do you think race should have any factor in scholarships?  i'm not trying to "catch" you.

I have no problem with race being a factor when awarding scholarships and that isn't a hypocritical stance.  When you first posed the question I was thinking about specific scholarships for training for specific industries like scholarships for black engineers made to well attract more black engineers to attempt diversify the field.  However, the more I think about it I'm also okay with general scholarships being awarded on the basis of race and here's why.  There are people still very alive, like baby boomers who had to fight for the right to attend public universities.  We are just a generation or two away from when college admission could be denied because of the color of your skin.  And yes there were/are black universities but then and to a somewhat lesser extent today achieving a degree from those places were viewed by the white power structure as inferior.  There need to be some things to balance the wrong of long time institutional discrimination.  You can't just change a law and snap your fingers and expect instant equality.  As far as higher education goes I think that there needs to be steps taken, like allowing race to be a factor in awarding certain scholarships, to help generations of minorities hurt and still recovering from institutional wrongs.  If you haven't seen the current 30 for 30, Ghosts of Mississippi, check it out it will shed some light on this very topic.

This is how I feel about scholarships.  I don't believe that a black landlord should be able to discriminate against white people.  I don't believe in hiring or admissions quotas either.

I would say that is cool for private scholarships, but certainly not state allotted money.  I know that certain universities also refuse to accept these types of scholarships and that is cool too, under the condition that the institution itself is a privately funded institution. 

State allotted funds should not be discriminatory outside of a few exceptions, be they grants, loans, or scholarships.  State-run institutions of higher-learning should not deny funds allocated regardless of whether or not the benefactor was discriminatory, racially or for any other reason, in their choice of recipient.

[MakeItRain]

Any thing that either rewards or denies a person something is discrimination, regardless or reason.
Is that your interpretation because that certainly isn't the definition of discrimination.
Obv. homosexuality or gender are not races, but biological factors. 

I would lump racial, gender, etc.  into a category called "biological discrimination"
We'll it sounds like you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, if you do we can wrap this up.  I believe sexual orientation is also biological, it is outside of your choice.  I mean I could cover up my skin every single day, wear a wig and try to live racially neutral but at the end of the day I'm still black.  That's how I see gay people who don't live as gay people.
Most people believe that this type of discrimination is wrong.  Some don't. 

The problem comes when we get into a discussion of rights and liberty.

MIR used the Thomas Jefferson quote "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This stems from an earlier phrase that originally voiced these three things as rights of the highest order, "unalienable rights" meaning no one can take them away with out just cause ie. you are a criminal.  The earlier phrase also listed property instead of happiness, but that is unimportant to what I'm arguing.

The key term in the phrase is pursuit.  No person is allowed to use force to impede another persons pursuit of their goal. Denying someone the voluntary exchange of goods or time is not stopping them from pursuing those goods, it is simply not allowing them to force action on the denier, which itself is using force to deny someone their pursuit of voluntary exchange.

No it isn't.  Having anti-discrimination laws isn't telling people they have to sell to gay people, just that they cannot deny a gay person from selling that good.  If that law stayed on the books in Salina it doesn't force Scheme Pizza to seek out gays to sell pizza to, it just forces them to not give me a pie because I'm a man of taste and distinction.  If I see someone walking up to my store and I think they are gay I can simply close my doors.  What I can't do is put up a sign that says no lezzies allowed.  Also if you don't have anti-discrimination laws you can't ensure that the pursuit of those goods is possible.  Without the laws how could you possibly know that all of the watch makers in Salina won't discriminate against gays?  I can't have a watch made if I'm gay in Salina?  That doesn't sound fun, nicname.

[MakeItRain]

yes, i've seen the ghosts of ole miss, and it was excellent.

for the record, i mostly agree with you, but i also don't have strong feelings on the matter.

my whole problem was the way you, and others, berated and basically discounted nicname as a bigot because of his view.  he places more priority on personal liberty than righting the wrongs of the past (at least that's how i took it).  you stated that your position is all about equality, and then name multiple instances where you place one group over another.  to say he has absolutely no basis for his view and to call him racist/bigoted seemed intentionally obtuse to me.

never called nicname a bigot, dnr anything you typed after that.  Nicname is my dude, I never called him a bigot, as a matter of fact I said twice "nicname is not a bigot."

[star seed 7]

Any thing that either rewards or denies a person something is discrimination, regardless or reason.
Is that your interpretation because that certainly isn't the definition of discrimination.
Obv. homosexuality or gender are not races, but biological factors. 

I would lump racial, gender, etc.  into a category called "biological discrimination"
We'll it sounds like you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, if you do we can wrap this up.  I believe sexual orientation is also biological, it is outside of your choice.  I mean I could cover up my skin every single day, wear a wig and try to live racially neutral but at the end of the day I'm still black.  That's how I see gay people who don't live as gay people.

the line above he mentions homosexuality as biological.

[MakeItRain]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

i won't deny that you are more intelligent when it comes to putting words together, it's not one of my strong points.  give me a math problem and i'll solve the rough rider, but writing a paper is pure hell for me.

i wasn't saying anything about being on basis of race alone, so my question now is why do you think race should have any factor in scholarships?  i'm not trying to "catch" you.

I have no problem with race being a factor when awarding scholarships and that isn't a hypocritical stance.  When you first posed the question I was thinking about specific scholarships for training for specific industries like scholarships for black engineers made to well attract more black engineers to attempt diversify the field.  However, the more I think about it I'm also okay with general scholarships being awarded on the basis of race and here's why.  There are people still very alive, like baby boomers who had to fight for the right to attend public universities.  We are just a generation or two away from when college admission could be denied because of the color of your skin.  And yes there were/are black universities but then and to a somewhat lesser extent today achieving a degree from those places were viewed by the white power structure as inferior.  There need to be some things to balance the wrong of long time institutional discrimination.  You can't just change a law and snap your fingers and expect instant equality.  As far as higher education goes I think that there needs to be steps taken, like allowing race to be a factor in awarding certain scholarships, to help generations of minorities hurt and still recovering from institutional wrongs.  If you haven't seen the current 30 for 30, Ghosts of Mississippi, check it out it will shed some light on this very topic.

This is how I feel about scholarships.  I don't believe that a black landlord should be able to discriminate against white people.  I don't believe in hiring or admissions quotas either.

I would say that is cool for private scholarships, but certainly not state allotted money.  I know that certain universities also refuse to accept these types of scholarships and that is cool too, under the condition that the institution itself is a privately funded institution. 

State allotted funds should not be discriminatory outside of a few exceptions, be they grants, loans, or scholarships.  State-run institutions of higher-learning should not deny funds allocated regardless of whether or not the benefactor was discriminatory, racially or for any other reason, in their choice of recipient.

I don't think state funded scholarships can be awarded using race as a criteria.  That seems to be a quota and quotas are illegal, upheld by the supreme court.

[MakeItRain]

Any thing that either rewards or denies a person something is discrimination, regardless or reason.
Is that your interpretation because that certainly isn't the definition of discrimination.
Obv. homosexuality or gender are not races, but biological factors. 

I would lump racial, gender, etc.  into a category called "biological discrimination"
We'll it sounds like you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, if you do we can wrap this up.  I believe sexual orientation is also biological, it is outside of your choice.  I mean I could cover up my skin every single day, wear a wig and try to live racially neutral but at the end of the day I'm still black.  That's how I see gay people who don't live as gay people.

the line above he mentions homosexuality as biological.

waiting for an apology

[nicname]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

i won't deny that you are more intelligent when it comes to putting words together, it's not one of my strong points.  give me a math problem and i'll solve the rough rider, but writing a paper is pure hell for me.

i wasn't saying anything about being on basis of race alone, so my question now is why do you think race should have any factor in scholarships?  i'm not trying to "catch" you.

I have no problem with race being a factor when awarding scholarships and that isn't a hypocritical stance.  When you first posed the question I was thinking about specific scholarships for training for specific industries like scholarships for black engineers made to well attract more black engineers to attempt diversify the field.  However, the more I think about it I'm also okay with general scholarships being awarded on the basis of race and here's why.  There are people still very alive, like baby boomers who had to fight for the right to attend public universities.  We are just a generation or two away from when college admission could be denied because of the color of your skin.  And yes there were/are black universities but then and to a somewhat lesser extent today achieving a degree from those places were viewed by the white power structure as inferior.  There need to be some things to balance the wrong of long time institutional discrimination.  You can't just change a law and snap your fingers and expect instant equality.  As far as higher education goes I think that there needs to be steps taken, like allowing race to be a factor in awarding certain scholarships, to help generations of minorities hurt and still recovering from institutional wrongs.  If you haven't seen the current 30 for 30, Ghosts of Mississippi, check it out it will shed some light on this very topic.

This is how I feel about scholarships.  I don't believe that a black landlord should be able to discriminate against white people.  I don't believe in hiring or admissions quotas either.

I would say that is cool for private scholarships, but certainly not state allotted money.  I know that certain universities also refuse to accept these types of scholarships and that is cool too, under the condition that the institution itself is a privately funded institution. 

State allotted funds should not be discriminatory outside of a few exceptions, be they grants, loans, or scholarships.  State-run institutions of higher-learning should not deny funds allocated regardless of whether or not the benefactor was discriminatory, racially or for any other reason, in their choice of recipient.

I don't think state funded scholarships can be awarded using race as a criteria.  That seems to be a quota and quotas are illegal, upheld by the supreme court.

What do you think of the rest of my statement?

[star seed 7]

sorry, i was going back a few pages and re-reading.  pretty much skimmed a bunch of posts at the start, because i didn't plan on actually doing anything with the thread.

yes, YOU didn't call him a bigot.  others did. i honestly got you and rusty mixed together. apologies.

[Tobias]

sorry, i was going back a few pages and re-reading.  pretty much skimmed a bunch of posts at the start, because i didn't plan on actually doing anything with the thread.

yes, YOU didn't call him a bigot.  others did.  apologies.

i don't think anyone called him a bigot.  there was a generic "lotta bigots being outed itt" post and another cautioning to tread carefully.  mostly just people that don't agree with his concept of letting discrimination shake itself out in some sort of a free market (myself included)

[nicname]

Any thing that either rewards or denies a person something is discrimination, regardless or reason.
Is that your interpretation because that certainly isn't the definition of discrimination.
Obv. homosexuality or gender are not races, but biological factors. 

I would lump racial, gender, etc.  into a category called "biological discrimination"
We'll it sounds like you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, if you do we can wrap this up.  I believe sexual orientation is also biological, it is outside of your choice.  I mean I could cover up my skin every single day, wear a wig and try to live racially neutral but at the end of the day I'm still black.  That's how I see gay people who don't live as gay people.

the line above he mentions homosexuality as biological.

Yeah, this is right.  MIR wasn't calling names either.

[nicname]

Any thing that either rewards or denies a person something is discrimination, regardless or reason.
Is that your interpretation because that certainly isn't the definition of discrimination.
Obv. homosexuality or gender are not races, but biological factors. 

I would lump racial, gender, etc.  into a category called "biological discrimination"
We'll it sounds like you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, if you do we can wrap this up.  I believe sexual orientation is also biological, it is outside of your choice.  I mean I could cover up my skin every single day, wear a wig and try to live racially neutral but at the end of the day I'm still black.  That's how I see gay people who don't live as gay people.
Most people believe that this type of discrimination is wrong.  Some don't. 

The problem comes when we get into a discussion of rights and liberty.

MIR used the Thomas Jefferson quote "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This stems from an earlier phrase that originally voiced these three things as rights of the highest order, "unalienable rights" meaning no one can take them away with out just cause ie. you are a criminal.  The earlier phrase also listed property instead of happiness, but that is unimportant to what I'm arguing.

The key term in the phrase is pursuit.  No person is allowed to use force to impede another persons pursuit of their goal. Denying someone the voluntary exchange of goods or time is not stopping them from pursuing those goods, it is simply not allowing them to force action on the denier, which itself is using force to deny someone their pursuit of voluntary exchange.

No it isn't.  Having anti-discrimination laws isn't telling people they have to sell to gay people, just that they cannot deny a gay person from selling that good.  If that law stayed on the books in Salina it doesn't force Scheme Pizza to seek out gays to sell pizza to, it just forces them to not give me a pie because I'm a man of taste and distinction.  If I see someone walking up to my store and I think they are gay I can simply close my doors.  What I can't do is put up a sign that says no lezzies allowed.  Also if you don't have anti-discrimination laws you can't ensure that the pursuit of those goods is possible.  Without the laws how could you possibly know that all of the watch makers in Salina won't discriminate against gays?  I can't have a watch made if I'm gay in Salina?  That doesn't sound fun, nicname.

The last paragraph you wrote is really confusing.  I think you might have mis-typed. 

[nicname]

Anyway, I'm tired. 

Go Cats. I'll be in SCK this weekend, so maybe I'll pak.

[MakeItRain]

do you believe race should be a factor in distribution of scholarships? (for the 3rd time since you keep dancing around it)

I'm not dancing around crap, you invoked this example in the name of affirmative action.  I haven't answered the question because I'm still not sure that you don't understand that your question doesn't have anything to do with affirmative action. You don't know what affirmative action is, these things are separate and I want to make that crystal clear.

No I don't think scholarships should be awarded on the basis of race alone.  Before you respond you need to carefully read this post, because I bet I'm not saying what you think I am.  BTW I'm too smart to let you rope-a-dope me into taking a hypocritical stance on this.

i won't deny that you are more intelligent when it comes to putting words together, it's not one of my strong points.  give me a math problem and i'll solve the rough rider, but writing a paper is pure hell for me.

i wasn't saying anything about being on basis of race alone, so my question now is why do you think race should have any factor in scholarships?  i'm not trying to "catch" you.

I have no problem with race being a factor when awarding scholarships and that isn't a hypocritical stance.  When you first posed the question I was thinking about specific scholarships for training for specific industries like scholarships for black engineers made to well attract more black engineers to attempt diversify the field.  However, the more I think about it I'm also okay with general scholarships being awarded on the basis of race and here's why.  There are people still very alive, like baby boomers who had to fight for the right to attend public universities.  We are just a generation or two away from when college admission could be denied because of the color of your skin.  And yes there were/are black universities but then and to a somewhat lesser extent today achieving a degree from those places were viewed by the white power structure as inferior.  There need to be some things to balance the wrong of long time institutional discrimination.  You can't just change a law and snap your fingers and expect instant equality.  As far as higher education goes I think that there needs to be steps taken, like allowing race to be a factor in awarding certain scholarships, to help generations of minorities hurt and still recovering from institutional wrongs.  If you haven't seen the current 30 for 30, Ghosts of Mississippi, check it out it will shed some light on this very topic.

This is how I feel about scholarships.  I don't believe that a black landlord should be able to discriminate against white people.  I don't believe in hiring or admissions quotas either.

I would say that is cool for private scholarships, but certainly not state allotted money.  I know that certain universities also refuse to accept these types of scholarships and that is cool too, under the condition that the institution itself is a privately funded institution. 

State allotted funds should not be discriminatory outside of a few exceptions, be they grants, loans, or scholarships.  State-run institutions of higher-learning should not deny funds allocated regardless of whether or not the benefactor was discriminatory, racially or for any other reason, in their choice of recipient.

I don't think state funded scholarships can be awarded using race as a criteria.  That seems to be a quota and quotas are illegal, upheld by the supreme court.

What do you think of the rest of my statement?

wholly agree