Today's SCOTUS ruling - Affirmative Action

[rah]

Ben, WOW. Just WOW. Just when I think you've hit low.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, WOW. Just WOW. Just when I think you've hit low.

I'm sorry. I don't really see how it's compassionate to force others to pay for your medical care when you make substantially more than I do for things that you should be paying for yourselves.

I've spoken at length about this - at least in Canada everything that I've needed has never been covered.

If I'm not getting any meaningful coverage, than at least I can go to the USA and pay my own way. And, at least until recently, wasn't expected to pay for people who make more than I do so they can get health care coverage.

Many Americans agree with me on this that it's not fair.

Please tell me why I should be forced to pay for other people's contraception, rah.

[Sava]

i admit, rah's reply made me view his post...

but I'm doing my best to stay strong!

I just love that ben is a more horrible person than even rush limbaugh

the worst thing a person I hate could do is be a decent human being

because then I'd look like the *******

i mean, i'm still an *******

just not the worst one

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, El Rushbo's deaf too. We deaf white boys have to stick together.

[rah]

Every time someone talks about being compassionate to poor people Ben trots out Sandra Flake like it justifies why we shouldn't help poor people. Pretty low in my book.

[Sava]

and why shouldn't we help her again?

oh yeah

she's a woman

[Ben Kenobi]

Every time someone talks about being compassionate to poor people Ben trots out Sandra Flake like it justifies why we shouldn't help poor people. Pretty low in my book.

It's not charity if you go to jail for not doing it.

[Sava]

we shouldn't help anyone ever with anything because i probably don't approve morally with every single thing they've ever done in their life

and it's my job to ultimately judge everything and hold every person to my standards

because i'm perfect

omg... me = god!

[Ben Kenobi]

we shouldn't help anyone ever with anything because i probably don't approve morally with every single thing they've ever done in their life

Sava, can you remember what happens when you force people to choose between following their faith or going to jail?

Catholics have an obligation not only to preserve themselves from sin, but to avoid causing other people to sin. By participating in schemes to fund contraception, Catholics are thus complicit in an evil. This is wrong.

The first amendment (which, doesn't apply to me), but to American citizens- states that American citizens have the right to free exercise of their religion.

You talk all the time about having the right not to be offended. So why don't Catholics have the right not to pay for someone else's contraception? You believe it's morally ok. So why are you forcing your morality on me?

I am not saying that Sandra Flake should be barred from obtaining contraception from those wishing to sell it. I am saying that she should pay for her own if that is what she wants.

[snoopy369]

The problem I have with that is that you are enforcing your faith on others. I have no problem with you choosing not to use contraception. But you equate paying taxes to the government, who also pays for contraception in others, to you supporting contraception; that is a logical fallacy. You are free to argue against it, but once it's a policy, live with it; it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of politics. You are trying to force all Americans to live by your faith (by denying government coverage). Nope.

Further, this is not how the American political experiment works. We separate our politics from the churches. That means not only "no prayer in schools" yada yada, but more importantly policy is set by the government without explicit consideration of religion. Again, they're not going to force you to use contraception, but it is certainly legitimate to support those who do wish contraception - which is the preference of the far, far majority of Americans, and I'd put $10 will also be the Catholic Church's policy within a decade (assuming the current Pope lives that long). They didn't appoint a South American pope to continue the policy that's far and away the most detrimental to that part of the world.

If your faith bothers you that much, move to somewhere that has a state religion. Lots of options there.

[PLATO]

If your faith bothers you that much, move to somewhere that has a state religion. Lots of options there.

That's an interesting thought...is there a country that has Catholicism as its state religion? I really don't know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Vatican

[Wiglaf]

The argument that AA discriminates against poor white kids is highly disingenuous. It's understandable, but disingenuous. Both white and black races have a spectrum of abilities and opportunities; Jesse Jackson Jr was spoiled rotten while any number of white kids are stuck with no future. Nobody argues that. However, the point of AA is that due to historical (and perhaps current) inequities perpetuated by those in power (who are still mostly white, far in excess of their population), any given black or hispanic person has less of an opportunity than an equivalent person in the white spectrum. In particular, AA looks at ratios of students, and say for example you have a state where 35% of the residents are black, 10% are hispanic, and 55% are white. You see a college that is 90% white, 8% black, 2% hispanic, and you have to think there is something inherently unequal here. It may be current discrimination, and it may be lack of opportunity based on historic inequities, but either way something is obviously wrong.

In order to, over time, ensure that a black family has the same opportunity as a white family, it _is_ necessary to give them a slight edge in things like college admission. Among two similarly qualified applicants, you select the black applicant (or hispanic or whatnot). Yes, some white applicant is rejected ultimately as a result of that, and that's too bad; but it's too bad we can't educate ALL of our residents at this school, after all. Whomever is rejected as the first student out is unfortunate; choosing to reject one white student over one black student (or two or three or eighteen) may in some cases be necessary to ultimately balance out society.

We, as white people, need to own what our forebears did - and accept that, because white people DID massively abuse our majority power over centuries, black and hispanic citizens are disadvantaged today. Admitting to ourselves that this was in fact our doing - not necessarily personally our doing, but certainly our doing as a body - is the first step towards fixing it.

We also need to admit that even if we are not actively racist, some of the policies we defend - such as the property tax/school funding link, gerrymandered political districts, even the advertising and television we watch - are still racist in their effect, if not their intent. It's also very easy to point to cultural differences and say that's why I don't like X; '"gangsta culture" or "rap/hip hop" or whatever is a bad influence, I only want my kids around people with wholesome values... ' is another way of saying "I want my white kids hanging out mostly with other white kids", even if that's not what you mean.

Why were blacks enslaved in the first place? Because they were so dumb and beastlike that our Founders saw nothing unethical at all about treating them like animals. Do you see how it is bizarre to now turn around and pretend blacks are not dumber than whites, despite the numerous IQ and SAT tests that consistently prove our Founders were onto something about the inherent intelligence differential between the races?

[Wiglaf]

It is so pathetic that you see college admissions as a legitimate way to "right" the wrong of slavery. Sorry your ancestors were enslaved and savaged..here, have an acceptance letter to a school you won't do well in! It's all better now, right? We'll even throw in some scholarship money! It's like your grandma was never even raped!

[Dinner]

It would seem to me that paternalism and the belief in the inferiority of other races are the only real justifications for race based AA at this point.

It's not paternalism to point out that just in the last two elections Republicans have systematically attempted to engage in voter suppression efforts and one of the few reasons many of those attempts were thwarted was section 4. So we have every reason to believe they will now simply intensive their efforts to disenfranchise groups they don't like; after all we have a half century's worth of proof they've been doing just that right up to the most recent election.