Author Topic: supreme court struck down affirmative action 6-2  (Read 34314 times)

you're looking up a global definition of "affirmative action," not the way the policy is used in the united states
You didn't even look at them. I know for a fact you didn't because...
Merriam Webster? Says IN THE US right at the beginning. I even highlighted it.
Encyclopedia Britannica? Would you look at that, says IN THE UNITED STATES right at the beginning.
Oxford? It says CHIEFLY NORTH AMERICAN (which contains the United States)!

You're really good at NOT READING.




because it's a waste of time and I'm doing other things
We're in a thread about affirmative action. You posted stuff directly stating "that's not how affirmative action works". Posting your understanding of affirmative action would only further your position in this argument, how is it a waste of time? If you're so concerned about wasting time how come you're still arguing in this thread? And finally, if you have a (presumably, since you seem to think you can call people out on it) strong knowledge of affirmative action, how could it even be that much of a waste of time to write it out?

affirmative action here doesn't prefer minorities. it doesn't single the majority and give them less of an opportunity. it makes colleges consider all applicants equally, regardless of race or gender or income. this does NOT mean that a person in the minority who failed every class in high school has the same chance as a white person who had nearly perfect grades. it means that a white person with good grades and a poc with good grades are considered equally

when a college prefers the applications of a minority over those of a white person, that is not what affirmative action means for us. banning affirmative action will not fix that

find a source that will prove this because everyone who disagrees with you is just going to keep linking the same definition over and over again

We're in a thread about affirmative action. You posted stuff directly stating "that's not how affirmative action works". Posting your understanding of affirmative action would only further your position in this argument, how is it a waste of time? If you're so concerned about wasting time how come you're still arguing in this thread? And finally, if you have a (presumably, since you seem to think you can call people out on it) strong knowledge of affirmative action, how could it even be that much of a waste of time to write it out?

please do this night fox

calling out your opposers' stupidity is not going to persuade them

You don't need to worry about unqualified people taking high level jobs. If someone gets into Harvard through affirmative action, they will not have easier curriculum for it. Businesses have ample reason to hire qualified people over underqualified people, it just means more money and better performance for them. But if it comes down to a minority vs a white guy with very similar skill/knowledge, they should pick the black guy, to better society. The white guy hasn't been snubbed, because if it came down to him versus another candidate of the same skill level, then he's clearly one of the best. He won't have trouble finding a job.

That is the philosophy.

-snip-

haha no but i understand that women face harassment a little bit more than others
I think your use of the image is flawed logic, even if it was somewhat tongue in cheek. People like that are a vocal minority and their existence doesn't mean women don't face real harassment. I wish they didn't exist so people wouldn't use them to invalidate legitimate feminist's views.
Many cultures had slavery and terrible wars and injustice, you're just ignorant.
The reason whites get blamed for it all was simply because we happened to be the most successful race, so the same course of action every other culture took is multiplied by a bunch.
Did I ever say America was the only culture with terrible wars and slavery and injustice? forget no. But China never had a Civil Rights era. Nor did Israel. They have no need for these kinds of policies because there isn't a native minority population that was extremely oppressed not decades ago. (Palestine is an exception, but Israel mistreats the forget out of them anyway. That argument is for a different topic though)


I'd like to continue arguing but I really should do my homework. I hope y'all understand. Please consider my views. Thanks.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 08:44:42 PM by ultimamax »

find a source that will prove this because everyone who disagrees with you is just going to keep linking the same definition over and over again
Excuse you. I just posed 4 new sources with the same definition.

Excuse you. I just posed 4 new sources with the same definition.
oh so now your sources are suddenly supporting night fox?

oh so now your sources are suddenly supporting night fox?
No?
The same definition that we've (read: not Night Fox) been using.

Excuse you. I just posed 4 new sources with the same definition.

are you suddenly night fox's alt

i was talking to night fox

You didn't even look at them. I know for a fact you didn't because...
Merriam Webster? Says IN THE US right at the beginning. I even highlighted it.
Encyclopedia Britannica? Would you look at that, says IN THE UNITED STATES right at the beginning.
Oxford? It says CHIEFLY NORTH AMERICAN (which contains the United States)!
You're really good at NOT READING.
in that case, I'm just ignoring it because it's wrong
We're in a thread about affirmative action. You posted stuff directly stating "that's not how affirmative action works". Posting your understanding of affirmative action would only further your position in this argument, how is it a waste of time? If you're so concerned about wasting time how come you're still arguing in this thread? And finally, if you have a (presumably, since you seem to think you can call people out on it) strong knowledge of affirmative action, how could it even be that much of a waste of time to write it out?
why are you still on this after I did what you were asking me to do?
find a source that will prove this because everyone who disagrees with you is just going to keep linking the same definition over and over again
already did that
to all of you who clearly aren't reading the articles but are claiming not only to have read them but also that they are saying things they actually aren't:
"These policies and programs encourage positive action to make certain that qualified candidates for jobs, admission to school or contracts are given fair and equal consideration. And the word “qualified” is important to underscore – affirmative action programs are designed for qualified individuals."
"Affirmative action programs are designed to provide qualified individuals with equal access to opportunity. Affirmative action encourages companies, organizations, and educational institutions to evaluate candidates equally and fairly – that is, based on their qualifications."
"Affirmative action calls for fairness. Under affirmative action, those who make hiring and admissions decisions are only responsible for giving all candidates a fair chance to be evaluated, regardless of gender or race. The essence of affirmative action is opportunity."


reminder that this article is directly from a college that uses affirmative action

are you suddenly night fox's alt

i was talking to night fox
Oh.

in that case, I'm just ignoring it because it's wrong
What the forget is wrong with you? Those are the 4 most reputable sources for definitions that exist. I'd like to see at least 5 very credible sources with the definition you've been using.

They can't be biased, so no Civil Rights Movement, no colleges that have any sort of opinion on the matter, et cetera.

You can't just decide that the universally-agreed-upon definiton is wrong just because you think it is. Turns out, you're not in charge of the English language.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 08:47:28 PM by TristanLuigi »

in that case, I'm just ignoring it because it's wrongwhy are you still on this after I did what you were asking me to do?already did that
Night Fox, why are you even continuing this argument?

What the forget is wrong with you? Those are the 4 most reputable sources for definitions that exist.
I can guarantee you that none of those four sources are colleges using affirmative action. as soon as you show me an institution that actually uses affirmative action that says those things, then I'll consider what you're saying
Night Fox, why are you even continuing this argument?
because they're wrong

why are you still on this after I did what you were asking me to do
Oh, I got confused when you said "it's a waste of time" in the same post where you apparently did it anyways. I am now going to stop posting in this thread because I sense an argument that is not going to go anywhere.

I wish they didn't exist so people wouldn't use them to invalidate legitimate feminist's views.
>legitimate feminists


Oh, I got confused when you said "it's a waste of time" in the same post where you apparently did it anyways.
you asked me why I was reluctant to do it, that's what I was answering