Skip to main content

Reply to "Why blkCONS cannot logically justify their stance on issues"

quote:
It wasn't "all of that" - it was just the factual support that should have been provided in the first place.
What part of this don't you understand?

Really... if you actually had a point you would be able to better specify what is missing. To the contrary, all you have said after that is a mix of contradictory stuff that you can't even begin to present in a manner that makes sense. So Kevin has to prove what?

Factual information that will tell us what, DD?
Factual information that will support exactly what part of what Kevin said that you feel is problematic? The Causal Relationship you listed about "racism" doesn't seem to be the point so, once again, it seems you are missing the point. Obviously, you were working under a flawed premise and, as such, you're wanting proof for something that was not contended or suggested.

This is and has always been the crux of Kevin's point:
"Why is it that black conservatives work in conjunction with the racist right to limit the college and professional opportunities..."

That emphasis on why B-Con's would support things that would LIMIT OPPORTUNITES is a far cry from that gut-feeling about "racist" policies BS you listed as your reasoning for wanting proof. Again, you were not on point. That would classify as a "silly" posting because that has hardly ever been the point.

I mean, damn... KEVIN repeats that shit almost verbatim probably ten times a day when posting (in opposition to CF, etc.) and there is absolutely no way anyone looking at his position objectively to question or demand stats, etc. to justify whether there is "racism" at heart or the function of the policy when the clearest things in his own words is the LIMIT ON OPPORTUNITIES.

Further, the very statement of his you called yourself taking issue with made no allusion to racism but it did say something clearly about the LIMITS ON OPPORTUNITIES. Opportunities that are lost, a net loss, which I've demonstrated with only cursory amount of research.

So, once more, your reaching in all directions betray any objectivity you can dare claim much less any serious well founded reason to question what has been said. By the looks of it, you don't even know what you're questioning and you're, again, wanting proof for something that has not been suggested.

This huge drop in black enrollments at Boston Latin will do serious damage to the prospects of African-American students... to gain an education necessary for them to compete and be admitted to ***our nation's most selective colleges and universities.***
............... vs. ................
...You are assuming a causal relationship between race being removed as a criteria and drop in minority admissions. Your gut feeling (and even mine) may be that without legal checks, racist admissions policies are back in place, but it is just a guess without the stats.

BTW, the only relevant fact about the admissions policies is the FACT that AA was repealed. The extent to which B-Con's et al supported such a repeal is the thing that's at issue here. The other stuff is not relevant to what Kevin said. Note: There is no part of Kevin's questioned statement calling/claiming the policy is "racist"... Please point that clause out. Obviously you can't. So what was "all of that" stuff you were talking about? Causal Relationships? Gut Feelings (I guess you can just ASSUME mine)? Racist Admissions Policies "back in place"??

Where are you getting all this BS from?
The Burden Of Having A Basis For The Stuff You Say is on... you.

We do know from the history, by virtue of the 42% drop in Black enrollment, that that many more Black students had the OPPORTUNITY to go to that school which has some serious material impact on their life chances and life earnings particularly if they come from a low income background (the info. I listed before).

So, nowhere in this thread was there a position trying to establish that the policy was "racist" per se. The position was that there are fewer OPPORTUNITIES now that the AA ban has been enacted. Obviously, you don't have an argument against that and you wanted proof of something that was not at issue.

Yet another time you couldn't get your stuff straight.
Last edited {1}
×
×
×
×