Tristan Scott

Sorry Loren, I don't believe it. Could be an urban myth that you had heard, or there would have had to have been other factors involved than AA. Affirmative Action only applies to companies that contract with the government

Loren Pechtel

It was on 60 minutes--I hardly think they would do an urban legend. Nor would they talk with the owner of a factory that was an urban legend.

Also, where do you get the notion that it only applies if you contract with the government??

Koyaanisqatsi

Not in the slightest. My OP clearly outlines what topics were supposed to be discussed and my subsequent, repeated follow ups made it even clearer.

I created this post to discuss specific topics. If anyone wants to start their own thread dealing with issues that aren't relevant to my OP, they're free to do to so.

The comparison was for the legal precedent establishing the concept.

And are largely, comparatively more "accepted" in America due, arguably, to the change in America's "collective conscious" (if you will) as a result of what we did to the Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. Reparations were also called for in that dark spot in our history.

The issues involve what is officially sanctioned by our legislatures and what is officially admitted to and sought to be corrected through official channels.

Just look at a flipside example to see what kind of an impact such upper-echelon policy decisions make on the entire country. Woodrow Wilson officially sanctioned segregation in his administration, thereby causing the vast majority of racial harms that AA and the equal rights amendment sought to overcome decades later (and we're still dealing with on a social level).

If you haven't already, read Loewel's Lies My Teachers Told Me to get the full picture of how devastating that one official sanction from the top-down (literally) had on our country's racism as a social condition to see what I mean.

:banghead:

Please re-read my proposal in my OP (and four other places throughout). It has nothing to do with money.

(this is why I've had to constantly repost what this thread is supposed to be about)

Lestat de Lioncourt

Koy, it sure is funny how you pick and choose what posts you respond to. Those you cannot give a legitmate (as in, the better) argument in rebutal you simply ignore and go onto the other posts in which you disect the parts you think are debatable and commence with the blathering.

If you truly want to establish a legitimate argument in support of reparations then I challenge you to present your case in a logical format. Please, humor me (us) and give us a what you would consider a sound argument with valid premises in the form of a syllogism. Then perhaps we all could have a better framwork from which to debate you on in order to discuss the reliability of your inferences that you believe is the basis of support for your conclusion.

Well?

Lestat

lunachick

Lestat - if you click on the who's online link, you'll see Koy is still responding to this thread. You wanna place bets that he'll be responding to you soon?

Lestat de Lioncourt

Sure...why not. But first, he/she will have to finish reading my other response in the sister thread.

Anyhow, it will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm spent and it's time to hit the hay!

Until then...Same Bat Time...Same Bat Channel!!!!

Lestat

Koyaanisqatsi

What are you, five? Do you have any clue how jurisprudence works in this country?

My proposal does not punish caucasins other than indirectly and only in ways already officially sanctioned. Further it seeks to provide a means to extricate both the need for AA as well as AA. If that is what is necessary to correct a grievous harm, then so be it.

It is done on a regular basis and indeed was done to Americans of African descent officially to begin with. We place all kinds of sanctions and enact all kinds of laws that infringe on somebody's rights somewhere in order to both compensate and attempt to insure equality precisely because those in power before officially sanctioned disparity and inequality.

Correcting that wrong is the discussion here. Why is that so difficult for poeple to get? How many times do I have to detail what this thread is about?

You too are more than free to start your own thread and establish the topic for discussion all you'd like. That's your perogative.

A "Statute of Limitations" is a legal declaration which AA does not currently have, as I pointed out repeatedly. Indeed, it is the basis of my proposal on how best to establish a statute of limitations on AA. Had you actually read my OP and stayed on topic you might have caught that.

Tell that to a shiite terrorist holding a knife to your throat and you'll see precisely what meaningless rhetoric you're spouting. Or just don't pay your taxes and declare yourself a nation unto yourself to see how fast your individuality will be taken from you and sold at auction. You are a citizen first and foremost, no matter what propaganda you've rationalized in that sea of naivete you seem to think is relevant to my OP.

Legally. Try to keep up.

Un hunh. You keep singing that song of sixpence.

Is it too much to ask for any kind of cognitive leap? Probably, so I won't bother explaining it again.

READ MY GODDAMNED OP PROPOSAL. Christ, what a pointless waste of time this is.

Really? And how did you make this calculation? Let me guess. On some sort of monetary basis? Let's take a look...

Wow! So where are all these billionaire--no trillionaire--minorities?

Ohhhhhh....your evidence is erroeneously generalizing and placing a monetary estimate on the intent of AA, to disengenuously insinuate that reparations have somehow been paid, having nothing to do with my OP and having nothing to do with whether or not there is a fair and equitable balance for minorities in our social institutions.

After all, if we just stopped all anti-pollution sanctions on our corporations, then they'd all just stop dumping toxic waste into our water supply all on their own! Nevermind the reasons such steps had to be taken was because corporate America could not be trusted to do it on their own or that given the chance, they'd still do it, as evidenced by the fact that many are right now as an on-going, seriously detrimental business practice to increase their profit margins.

Yeah, you're right! Where was my logic taking me? We need to immediately remove all such stopgaps and just let corporate America do whatever it is they want to do, because they've got such a stellar record--in a generalized kind of way--don't you think?

Who are we, as a nation, to say that a company can't dump toxic waste in sewers or hire anybody they wan't to hire. Lord knows this has never been grievously abused in the past.

But that's all over now, right? No need to watchdog and supervise and legislate against corrupt corporate practices. After all, they're just individuals and not institutions with corporate policies and responsibilities to their stockholders and boards of directors, so the sins of the father don't.....get passed on....oh, wait. There's my "asinine" logic coming through again!

It's an institutional matter to be corrected by official governmental policy! Right! That's what we're talking about!

How asinine of me.

And this is relevant to my OP how?

Fine. I don't care how it's justified and considering it is temporary and seeks to do what AA currently does not in order to correct that very problem with AA in a legal, officially recognizable fashion, I see no problem with it.

But then, I live in the real world with a fuller understanding of how jurisprudence and legislative procedures work here than you apparently do with your quaint and almost adorable ignorance and naivete.

Fine, it's "reverse discrimination" in your mind. Suck it up and take a big bite of it so that you fully understand what discrimination means and why it shouldn't ever be tolerated and then maybe you'll address your brain cells to my OP proposal of how best to insure it's completion and removal.

Or are you just going to keep jumping up and down saying, "Get rid of it! They've been paid enough! It's not fair that I'm so inconvenienced by thinking I'm being discriminated against!"?

If that's an ancillary bonus to my proposal, I have no problem with that in the slightest.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Oh, sorry, more evidence of my "asinine" logic.

Again and probably for the twentieth time, kindly re-read my OP and take special note of the issues and conditions detailed therein.

Do you even know what logic is?

READ MY GODDAMNED OP AND THE SUBSEQUENT REITERATIONS OF THE TOPICS INVOLVED IN THIS THREAD IF YOU PLEASE.

Christ!

You are five, aren't you. How cute. You are aware that AA is "on the books" and that the equal rights amendment is likewise "on the books," yes? What do you think was the impetus for those?

Oh, I don't know. Historical "facts" on record presented as the givens that are implied by the fact that AA was established and the equal rights amendment passed for the more intelligent amongst us to focus on the issues I've raised? For you that would be my "blatherings."

Piercing counter argument.

Funny how the institutions they did that through are still alive, however.

Gee, now why didn't I factor that into my OP? Will wonders never cease?

The "distant" past? I was right. You are five. Hunh.

Try and focus through your ritalin. Here are a few key phrases for you to keep uppermost in your "mind": Instutitions; Government Policy; National Culpability; Methods of Reparation (see: non-monetary).

Well, I'm certainly glad it isn't mine.

Yes, actually I do. Only they're not "whining" about it; they have paid millions of dollars in legal fees over the decades in order to try and force our government to make good on all of the broken promises and shattered treaties that still have not all been settled.

Why am I even addressing your ignorance? This isn't Freshman Current Events 101.

In fact, enough. When you grow up a little and read some books and demonstrate you're capable of addressing the actual issues of someone's OP, then maybe you'll warrant a serious response.

Judging from this pointless, rhetorical tirade rife with so many fallacies I've lost count, I won't hold my breath.

Koyaanisqatsi

Tchah, baby, tchah.

Didn't mean to horn in on your modus operandi. Oh, wait! I don't.

Phew.

That's funny! You're adorable when you try to act all grown up.

Thanks, I needed the laugh.

Now, for the ten billionth time, kindly read my OP and the subsequent posts I've been repeatedly forced to make in order to clarify what the hell all of the rest of us are talking about.

If you were capable of applying logic, you'd already note that the issue of reparations was brought up as precedent to support the concept of my proposal. It is not meant to be either monetary or central to my proposal, other than in the legal precedent established by the concept and how that precedent can be applied in the abstract to my proposal as legal support of my proposal; aka, a "legal precedent" for my proposal.

No, no, really. You've provided more than enough of that, thank you.

Why? This also isn't Freshman Logic 101. My proposal and my OP....nevermind.

More pointlessness.

Thank you, lestat. You have proved a complete waste of time, however humorous for the rest of us.

Lestat de Lioncourt

BWWWAAAAHHHAAAAAAA! I just KNEW you wouldn't respond with a legitimate argument in the form of a syllogism! How predictable

As for your last two posts, well...I've got 4 words for you:

Confirmation Bias

and

Cognitive Dissonance

When time allows, I will respond to your last two posts further disproving your so-called argument. Not to mention exposing your continued ignorance of the subject.

Until then...

Lestat

Koyaanisqatsi

Un hunh.

Have fun with that.

Just try, for once, however, to actually make it about my proposal.

That would be a good start.