Conservative Hypocrisy... again... AA vs Charities

[Japher]

Dear lord. I was joking. Dude, that's absurd. So you get accepted over a more qualified applicant because you have no money? WTF?

No. I don't think any one less qualified should be passed up for someone more qualified, no matter what.

What I am trying to express is that using race as a criteria for entrance into an educational establishment is non-productive and in some cases counter-productive.

Yet, someone from a poor family is less likely to go to college for many more reasons than someone who is from a familly of a certain race. Financial instability leads to a lot more problems to the decision of going to school.

Also, being from a poor family one is less likely to have the opportunities or support awarded to them due to financial instability (i.e. work instead of study, having to live out of a car, etc.). Such people are more concerned about their survival than they are about their education. Yet, given such an opportunity may be just as likely to succeed as some one who is given an opportunity based souly on their race.

My point:

Admissions based on Race is less practical than admissions based on income.

[Sava]

Not True! I am conservative and opposed to discrimination based on race. I am definately FOR more equality in education and educational spending.

Good I'm glad you belong to the group of conservatives with a conscience. I wish there were more like you.

Seriously, I'm against affirmative action but I don't think there is one person on this forum who has is more for equalized education than I am.

Your silly little rant suggests you took my posts personally. I don't recall talking about you, to you, or at you, nor do I recall any of your political views. Deflate your ego bub. And learn how to insult properly. My little brother can do better than that.

[Sava]

Admissions based on Race is less practical than admissions based on income.

Translation: "I want less black people and more poor whites to belong to the "elite" class.

[Japher]

Is that what you think Sava? I wonder what percentage of the poverish are white compared to other races? If racism is so rampant, and the white man is suprressing everyone else would it not accomplish the same thing as AA without having to play the race card?

[Q Classic]

Translation: "I want less black people and more poor whites to belong to the "elite" class.

not quite. a rich black family living in the suburbs have children which tend to do better in school than a poor black family or a poor white family in the inner city.

thus, the rich black kid shouldn't get the ec-based aa, just as the rich white kid shouldn't. the poor kids ought to, because their education was most likely more deprived.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Sava
Your silly little rant suggests you took my posts personally. I don't recall talking about you, to you, or at you, nor do I recall any of your political views. Deflate your ego bub. And learn how to insult properly. My little brother can do better than that.

I'm saying you are making a far too wide generalization and need to grow up. Whenever someone trys to point something else you always just reply with some immature personal attack. And yes, I know I attacked you personally too, but you weren't replying to that attack yet. The thing is, I wasn't trying to insult you in that post too. You are so in your own little perverse world that you fail to understand what people are trying to tell you.

[Apocalypse]

Forget what I said earlier about not being sure. This from something I mainly got from another source....

Yep, it is a does race exist thread. So take a stand on which side you believe - and apply to the situation; because the logic of hypocrisy comes about only when you dismiss, or abandon commitment to your standard.

So Sava, characteristics currently available to discriminate against are learned qualities that you can actively change - religion, intelligence, drug use, hygiene. Other characteristics which can not be discriminated against because they are natural and can not be changed with conscious maintenance include sexual orientation, physical handicaps and - you guessed it!

But wait! Race is either....

A). A characteristic you are born wit and haven't a choice to change because it is a genetic make up
B). A completely false human notion that doesn't exist

Now after picking one of the above (or abstaining because you are void of argument) - remember that for B: something that does not exist can not logically be discriminated against. If the "flawed" characteristic in truth doesn't exist, laying blame on the flaw for rejection holds about as much merit as rejecting an applicant because of the invisible stick of cotton candy rammed up his/her ass. Did you pick A? Well guess what then - you can't descrimiate against that as you can religion, because it is a concrete quality - not a leaning that can be altered!

So which is it going to be, A or B - and how exactly do you follow up in lumping together two polarized classes of characteristics?

And Sava, I'm not taking anything personally. I want you to know this as a disclaimer. This is not personal to me. It has nothing to do with my ego. I have far more other things in my life that affect my ego. A message board that I'll soon be too busy to post on doesn't. So respond to this and don't try to attack my ego and be all immature again.

[Sava]

Translation: "I want less black people and more poor whites to belong to the "elite" class.

tee hee this was a troll. hook line and sinker!

Apoc: Oh please, as I specified in the first post

I'm making a silly generalization. But while watching all the talking head news commentary shows that I watch, I've seen these two discussions taking place with the more conservative person taking the forementioned stances on these respective issues

I'm referring to people (WHO ARE MOSTLY CONSERVATIVE) who are opposed to AA and FOR religious discrimination. If you don't belong to this category, THEN I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!.

Look Apoc, if you have to result to personal attacks, don't bother posting.

Learn to read. That's all I ask.

Anyways, carry on. I'm done with you and this thread jack.

[Japher]

Exactly Apocolypse

I tried to say that, but feel short.

I really have no idea. IMO, we should find another measure of determination which would include a greater number of the people that need the help w/o calling it race. For the minute you say the word "race" in the same sentence as "equality" you are setting yourself up for a hypocritical statement, as far as education admissions are concerned.

[Japher]

tee hee this was a troll. hook line and sinker!

You say that now, but I am a bigot

Look Apoc, if you have to result to personal attacks, don't bother posting.

but Sava your lifeline requires you to absorb such attacks!... and then to redirect them + a little spam

[PLATO]

If we would simply provide the same educational opportunities from pre-school - high school then the AA argument would be moot. My feeling is that you do NOT deny opportunity for a highly qualified person in order to grant it to a less qualified person regardless of past inequalities. Let's not try to fix the past, let's try to fix the future.

Discrimination by charities based on religion is a TOTALLY different topic. It makes sense that any group will show preference to those affiliated with it.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Sava
Oh please, as I specified in the first post

I'm referring to people (WHO ARE MOSTLY CONSERVATIVE) who are opposed to AA and FOR religious discrimination. If you don't belong to this category, THEN I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!.

Look Apoc, if you have to result to personal attacks, don't bother posting.

Learn to read. That's all I ask.

Anyways, carry on. I'm done with you and this thread jack.

Honestly, I don't care about this. If you want me to, I can respond in pm. But the main problem I have with you at the moment is that you think that by replying to this, you can ignore the meaty, heavily substantive post I made. You call this a thread jack, but you are the one replying to one part of my post and ignoring the majorly on topic part.

[Apocalypse]

Oh please, as I specified in the first post

I'm referring to people (WHO ARE MOSTLY CONSERVATIVE) who are opposed to AA and FOR religious discrimination. If you don't belong to this category, THEN I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!.

That's great Sava - because this is Zylka, and I wrote that long post with the A and B dilemma, and ONLY that post (and did not insult you anywhere in it)

Not only do I oppose AA, I am for religious discrimination. Now that I've met your prerequisites, please answer the question.

[Japher]

because this is Zylka

Not only do I oppose AA, I am for religious discrimination.

please answer the question.

It can be like pulling teeth

[Ben Kenobi]

who are opposed to AA and FOR religious discrimination.

I don't believe that the faith-based initiatives amount to religious discrimination, hence I support them.