Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 02-14-2002, 12:33 PM

Deputy Dawg:

You leave off a key word: "qualified."

Historically, blacks (and other minorities) were underrepresented in scholarships (and colleges). Not "racism pawned off as equality," but "racism pawned off as...racism." Minority-specific scholarships were (and are) a valid method of overcoming that racist-based underrepresentation.

Since there are plenty scholarships available to white students who want to become engineers, and I'm guessing that the majority (or at least a representative percentage) of students receiving engineering scholarships are white (and for engineering, I'd also guess a majority are male), what's you're point?

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Mageth · 02-14-2002, 12:40 PM

So, blacks, minorities and women earn less and therefore cannot afford as much because of their status and therefore they are afforded more financial aid because of it. How unfair to you and all the other white males that could afford to put themselves through college!! Oh, the injustice of it all.

Excellently said, brighid. I am a white male and worked my way through college. I take pride in the fact that I could do it, but in no way do I consider this "unfair" or "unjust." Indeed, if I was black and/or female, I seriously question whether I would have gotten some of the jobs that allowed me to work my way through, or the understanding from some of my teachers when I explained my situation to them.

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 01:01 PM

a lengthy critique, i will attempt to be concise, i know i haven't succeeded lately.

the problem with mandating equality is the implementation of the dogma. yes dogma thats what it is.

absolutely, i think any woman can have much to teach.

the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different. additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting.

as far as aristotle goes...
ergon (again i don't want to insult, just to be clear) is the function of an object. like a knife is best used for cutting, etc. i think it would be dangerous to say that people have a specific ergon because it objectivies the subject. i dont have time here to treat the topic properly. for this reason i refrain from proclaiming gender roles.

regarding role models.....
i think you will agree that while a woman can do perform many of the same tasks that a male role model would, a man in that role would be more desirable. two people being otherwise equal, a man would function as a male role model better than a woman.

the complex idea......
im sure you all know the frustration while reading religious texts because very often the language is paradoxical. the more beautiful the mystery, the more paradoxical need be the language used to express it.

arbitrary symbology, why debate it?...
just saying that everything ultimately can be argued down to nothing. (in this respect i suppose i am more buddhist than anything) language is arbitrary, symbols are arbitrary; taking it to its final conclusion.....the purpose of argument falls away and we are left with nothing but us here and now, or something.

metphor being unscientific....
i hate to tell you science is just as arbitrary and just another mode of thought like everything else you decry here. does science lead to wisdom and understanding? i don't know, but name one scientist who is "wise" and i will show you 1000 who are not. again, a tangent, and not enought time go into here

but i would say science is your religion.

paul the woman basher.....
the problem with your assesment here i think lies in your apparent conviction of the supremacy of your view. no matter how much you try to escape it, you still view st paul and early christians ethnocentrically. tsk tsk, i expected so much more.

veno roma......
sure many outside things have changed since then, but is it really as much as you think? people are still people, and have many of the same concerns. a youth growing up in the city would need to worry about violence, getting ahead in the world through education. the true nature of politics hasnt changed since then, no has the beauracracy. you really think a riding horse around and pimping a caddy are that far off?

dismissing religious works.....
religion is more than just philosophy, it is a way of life. if your goal is to attempt to progressively dismiss holy books i think you have much to learn. much like endless conjecture is meaningless without works to back it up, so is attempting to quickly grasp, evaluate, and judge a specific doctrine of faith. i can read a holy book from another tradition, and while i may not agree with it, i temper my fanaticism with the understanding that i don't understand the book properly.

bullshit...
hey man who in this world isn't ultimately full of shit?

know your role.....
i'm glad you know your role

i hope you dont end up 80 years old and realize you have made a gross miscalculation. i'll always be here for you in case you change your mind.

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
[

So, blacks, minorities and women earn less and therefore cannot afford as much because of their status and therefore they are afforded more financial aid because of it. How unfair to you and all the other white males that could afford to put themselves through college!! Oh, the injustice of it all.

you belittle me because i decide to work for what i have instead of waiting for a handout. i afford college because i work not because i am in a higher social caste......thank you for teaching me the reasons i should be ashamed of my "social status"
Brighid[/QB]

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
Deputy Dawg:

You leave off a key word: "qualified."

Historically, blacks (and other minorities) were underrepresented in scholarships (and colleges). Not "racism pawned off as equality," but "racism pawned off as...racism." Minority-specific scholarships were (and are) a valid method of overcoming that racist-based underrepresentation.

d-racism pawned off as racism? sounds an awful lot like eye for an eye? rather abrahamic dont you think?

Since there are plenty scholarships available to white students who want to become engineers, and I'm guessing that the majority (or at least a representative percentage) of students receiving engineering scholarships are white (and for engineering, I'd also guess a majority are male), what's you're point?

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

i ask you this....let us assume there is racism. let us also assume that the programs you speak of are morally just and an effective way to "combat" racism and "level the playing field". at what point will these institutions have fulfilled their purpose and therefore be obsolete?

Mageth · 02-14-2002, 01:17 PM

the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different.

You seem to be trying to classify men and women in "traditional" emotional roles that are no more significant than their physical roles in regards to the equality question.

Name me one "emotional state" that a woman experiences that is not also experiencable, and experienced, by a man. You tend to couch many of your statements in absolute terms. To be more accurate, perhaps you should add some "tends to" and "typically" language.

The emotional makeup of individual men and women covers a broad spectrum. I've worked with "emotional" men and stoic, rational women. It's not the gender; it's the individual.

additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting.

Spoken like a true WASP. I thought we got over this bias against women in the workplace a couple of decades ago. Workplaces in general are no more or less sterile, unnatural, and objective due to the influx of women than they were 50 years ago. The lesson we've learned is that it does not require drastic changes in the workplace to accommodate women. They can handle it, by god!

And just what is a "natural" workplace, anyway?

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 01:18 PM

i ask this of everyone in favor of restorative practices....

you say that minorities deserve special help because they are behind in certain respects. blacks may not have access to quality education in math and therefore less likely to become engineers.

you attribute this deficency to "institutionalized racism". your method of knowing this fact is largely historical. (segregation meant second class for blacks).

at what point, if ever, will those disenfranchised in this manner overcome such history? or will that history in itself demand continuation of redistributive practices?

Mageth · 02-14-2002, 01:19 PM

i ask you this....let us assume there is racism. let us also assume that the programs you speak of are morally just and an effective way to "combat" racism and "level the playing field". at what point will these institutions have fulfilled their purpose and therefore be obsolete?

When everyone has dispensed with the attitudes you've expressed on this thread.

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different.

You seem to be trying to classify men and women in "traditional" emotional roles that are no more significant than their physical roles in regards to the equality question.

Name me one "emotional state" that a woman experiences that is not also experiencable, and experienced, by a man. You tend to couch many of your statements in absolute terms. To be more accurate, perhaps you should add some "tends to" and "typically" language.

The emotional makeup of individual men and women covers a broad spectrum. I've worked with "emotional" men and stoic, rational women. It's not the gender; it's the individual.

additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting.

Spoken like a true WASP. I thought we got over this bias against women in the workplace a couple of decades ago. Workplaces in general are no more or less sterile, unnatural, and objective due to the influx of women than they were 50 years ago. The lesson we've learned is that it does not require drastic changes in the workplace to accommodate women. They can handle it, by god!

And just what is a "natural" workplace, anyway?

again with those labels, i expected so much more from you.

you agree that people wanting to change their gender, among other things, take hormones to affect physical and emotional changes. i dont deny the subjective nature of the individual, yet you do by implementing such restorative practices.

a strictly male emotional state.....
a woman can't be happy she is a man i guess.

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
i ask you this....let us assume there is racism. let us also assume that the programs you speak of are morally just and an effective way to "combat" racism and "level the playing field". at what point will these institutions have fulfilled their purpose and therefore be obsolete?

When everyone has dispensed with the attitudes you've expressed on this thread.

thats bullshit, especially coming from those who profess free speech and thought. apparently you are equally as dogmatic and inflexible as a christian....be careful

02-14-2002, 12:33 PM	#81
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Deputy Dawg: You leave off a key word: "qualified." Historically, blacks (and other minorities) were underrepresented in scholarships (and colleges). Not "racism pawned off as equality," but "racism pawned off as...racism." Minority-specific scholarships were (and are) a valid method of overcoming that racist-based underrepresentation. Since there are plenty scholarships available to white students who want to become engineers, and I'm guessing that the majority (or at least a representative percentage) of students receiving engineering scholarships are white (and for engineering, I'd also guess a majority are male), what's you're point? [ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2002, 12:40 PM	#82
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	So, blacks, minorities and women earn less and therefore cannot afford as much because of their status and therefore they are afforded more financial aid because of it. How unfair to you and all the other white males that could afford to put themselves through college!! Oh, the injustice of it all. Excellently said, brighid. I am a white male and worked my way through college. I take pride in the fact that I could do it, but in no way do I consider this "unfair" or "unjust." Indeed, if I was black and/or female, I seriously question whether I would have gotten some of the jobs that allowed me to work my way through, or the understanding from some of my teachers when I explained my situation to them.

02-14-2002, 01:01 PM	#83
Deputy42 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: pittsburgh Posts: 99	a lengthy critique, i will attempt to be concise, i know i haven't succeeded lately. the problem with mandating equality is the implementation of the dogma. yes dogma thats what it is. absolutely, i think any woman can have much to teach. the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different. additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting. as far as aristotle goes... ergon (again i don't want to insult, just to be clear) is the function of an object. like a knife is best used for cutting, etc. i think it would be dangerous to say that people have a specific ergon because it objectivies the subject. i dont have time here to treat the topic properly. for this reason i refrain from proclaiming gender roles. regarding role models..... i think you will agree that while a woman can do perform many of the same tasks that a male role model would, a man in that role would be more desirable. two people being otherwise equal, a man would function as a male role model better than a woman. the complex idea...... im sure you all know the frustration while reading religious texts because very often the language is paradoxical. the more beautiful the mystery, the more paradoxical need be the language used to express it. arbitrary symbology, why debate it?... just saying that everything ultimately can be argued down to nothing. (in this respect i suppose i am more buddhist than anything) language is arbitrary, symbols are arbitrary; taking it to its final conclusion.....the purpose of argument falls away and we are left with nothing but us here and now, or something. metphor being unscientific.... i hate to tell you science is just as arbitrary and just another mode of thought like everything else you decry here. does science lead to wisdom and understanding? i don't know, but name one scientist who is "wise" and i will show you 1000 who are not. again, a tangent, and not enought time go into here but i would say science is your religion. paul the woman basher..... the problem with your assesment here i think lies in your apparent conviction of the supremacy of your view. no matter how much you try to escape it, you still view st paul and early christians ethnocentrically. tsk tsk, i expected so much more. veno roma...... sure many outside things have changed since then, but is it really as much as you think? people are still people, and have many of the same concerns. a youth growing up in the city would need to worry about violence, getting ahead in the world through education. the true nature of politics hasnt changed since then, no has the beauracracy. you really think a riding horse around and pimping a caddy are that far off? dismissing religious works..... religion is more than just philosophy, it is a way of life. if your goal is to attempt to progressively dismiss holy books i think you have much to learn. much like endless conjecture is meaningless without works to back it up, so is attempting to quickly grasp, evaluate, and judge a specific doctrine of faith. i can read a holy book from another tradition, and while i may not agree with it, i temper my fanaticism with the understanding that i don't understand the book properly. bullshit... hey man who in this world isn't ultimately full of shit? know your role..... i'm glad you know your role i hope you dont end up 80 years old and realize you have made a gross miscalculation. i'll always be here for you in case you change your mind.

02-14-2002, 01:17 PM	#86
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different. You seem to be trying to classify men and women in "traditional" emotional roles that are no more significant than their physical roles in regards to the equality question. Name me one "emotional state" that a woman experiences that is not also experiencable, and experienced, by a man. You tend to couch many of your statements in absolute terms. To be more accurate, perhaps you should add some "tends to" and "typically" language. The emotional makeup of individual men and women covers a broad spectrum. I've worked with "emotional" men and stoic, rational women. It's not the gender; it's the individual. additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting. Spoken like a true WASP. I thought we got over this bias against women in the workplace a couple of decades ago. Workplaces in general are no more or less sterile, unnatural, and objective due to the influx of women than they were 50 years ago. The lesson we've learned is that it does not require drastic changes in the workplace to accommodate women. They can handle it, by god! And just what is a "natural" workplace, anyway?

02-14-2002, 01:18 PM	#87
Deputy42 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: pittsburgh Posts: 99	i ask this of everyone in favor of restorative practices.... you say that minorities deserve special help because they are behind in certain respects. blacks may not have access to quality education in math and therefore less likely to become engineers. you attribute this deficency to "institutionalized racism". your method of knowing this fact is largely historical. (segregation meant second class for blacks). at what point, if ever, will those disenfranchised in this manner overcome such history? or will that history in itself demand continuation of redistributive practices?

02-14-2002, 01:19 PM	#88
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	i ask you this....let us assume there is racism. let us also assume that the programs you speak of are morally just and an effective way to "combat" racism and "level the playing field". at what point will these institutions have fulfilled their purpose and therefore be obsolete? When everyone has dispensed with the attitudes you've expressed on this thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.