In hiring, to compensate for the illegal discriminatory behavior of white men who would, without the law, hire without regard to qualifications and only put other white men in jobs.---MBM

That's plain enough.

Even for a European to understand.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Can you actually say, what the purpose of AA is, in your own words? So we're on the same page?


To "encourage" hiring decision-makers to expand the pool of qualified candidates without regard to race. As opposed to the decision-makers historic and current practice of hiring only those like themselves.
quote:
Thoroughly Demonstrated and Demolished By MBM & Kweli4Real:

quote:
Can you actually say, what the purpose of AA is, in your own words? So we're on the same page?


  • In hiring, to compensate for the illegal discriminatory behavior of white men who would, without the law, hire without regard to qualifications and only put other white men in jobs.

  • To "encourage" hiring decision-makers to expand the pool of qualified candidates without regard to race. As opposed to the decision-makers historic and current practice of hiring only those like themselves.


  • Me, I relate the difference between Affirmative Action and REPARATIONS to the things you see on your bills.
  • AA = CURRENT AMOUNT DUE (to assimilate women, "minorities", etc. into the "mainstream" workforce)
  • REPARATIONS = THE PAST DUE AMOUNT complete with Compound Interest and Service Charges.


    Anyway... The Disarming, Dismantling and Demolishing of your ignorant Talking Points here, Zeus, is complete. Of course, for some dumb reason, it's clear Mr. Zeus thought this ASSUMPTION of his would be validated:

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Black Viking:
    The problem you're having here, Zues, is that you're trying to mix apples and oranges. Reparations is about the past. Anti-Discrimination law and Affirmative Action are about the present and future. One can't cancel out the other, because one has nothing to do with the other.


    ...If I ask "what's the point of AA?" wouldn't people just say "to right the wrongs of the past". Isn't that reparations?


    Well, as explicitly as that was done... That's like 3 times (if you're counting) where your pre-scripted argument was nipped and snubbed.

    So, in another 50 posts or so, you can try that same Talking Point with another poster and see where it gets you. So far = NOWHERE.


    Thanks for playing...
  • Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    In hiring, to compensate for the illegal discriminatory behavior of white men who would, without the law, hire without regard to qualifications and only put other white men in jobs.


    Well, that question was for Ricardo, but if he agrees with your definition, the follow-up questions shall be this:

    If reparations for past harm done don't have anything to do with AA, why should there be AA at all? In other words, why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Me, I relate the difference between Affirmative Action and REPARATIONS to the things you see on your bills.
  • AA = CURRENT AMOUNT DUE (to assimilate women, "minorities", etc. into the "mainstream" workforce)
  • REPARATIONS = THE PAST DUE AMOUNT complete with Compound Interest and Service Charges.


  • "AA = CURRENT AMOUNT DUE"

    What, exactly, is this bill for? Why does someone owe something for not hiring someone?
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Me, I relate the difference between Affirmative Action and REPARATIONS to the things you see on your bills.
  • AA = CURRENT AMOUNT DUE (to assimilate women, "minorities", etc. into the "mainstream" workforce)
  • REPARATIONS = THE PAST DUE AMOUNT complete with Compound Interest and Service Charges.


  • "AA = CURRENT AMOUNT DUE"

    What, exactly, is this bill for? Why does someone owe something for not hiring someone?


    Zeus, don't you know that a white guy with a prison record is more likely to be hired than a black man with a clean record?
    quote:
    In other words, why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?

    I think you've just shot yourself in the foot ...and missed the whole point.
    why ya'll still holding this discussion w/ this dude?

    firefly; my conversation w/ zoos stoped when he made statments like "whites should be allowed to hire white.."

    it is like having a conversation w/ a child...

    children need to have ethics and morality explainded to them in detail..
    quote:
    Originally posted by Huey:
    Zeus, don't you know that a white guy with a prison record is more likely to be hired than a black man with a clean record?


    Yes. But why does the business owner who choses to hire criminals owe anything to anyone?

    ETA: If I hire a fox to guard my hen house, obviously, I'm an idiot. But why is that anyone else's business? Much less, why do I then owe anyone anything?
    quote:
    Originally posted by FireFly:
    I think you've just shot yourself in the foot


    I've already said the same exact thing early on in this thread. Still no reply.

    quote:
    ...and missed the whole point.


    What's the point then?
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

    What, exactly, is this bill for? Why does someone owe something for not hiring someone?



    Dude, that was not your question. Until you deal with and reconcile the flaw(s) in your previous question, you don't get to ask another question as to avoid confronting the problems with the former.


    And, no... I won't be entertaining ASININE questions from you. Period. Save that DECONTEXTUALIZED and AHISTORICAL dumb-think for some other forum. It's not happening here.

    This will NOT be a ONE-WAY debate/discussion. You will have to justify that BS you say. Since you can't, try that Replay stuff on another forum.

    The questions and ideas you're presenting now have already been dealt with just like the idiotic question you posed to Ricardo (as demonstrated per Black Viking).

    To your silly question... Ask "WHY?" in relation to the history that created the imbalance in the first place. When, by virtue a history like that of the US... when such an imbalance has been forged in terms of who is in the position to hire... then your stupid questions fall flat.

    Sorry, but I will not play the Vacuum Game with you.

    DEAL WITH THIS:
    quote:
    ...If I ask "what's the point of AA?" wouldn't people just say "to right the wrongs of the past". Isn't that reparations?


    As I posted, people here reject those ASSUMPTIONS of yours. Now, without posing questions, show that you have an intellectual pulse and show how you respond, intelligently, to this information that obviously doesn't fit your script.

    NO QUESTIONS. This is TWO-WAY or you can take the highway. PERIOD! Now advance the conversation by stating your position and how what you take issue with fits the pretenses you've listed here regarding "Peace" and everything else you've said.
    And your asinine, DECONTEXTUALIZED question has been addressed:

    quote:
    No one is forced to hire anyone. Any employer is free to not hire any person for any reason, so long as the reason is not a prohibited reason, as expressed by the will of the people. And, in these United States the will of the people, through its anti-discrimination laws, has clearly and specifically designated the basing of a non-hiring decision on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability status or age, as prohibited conduct. Never-the-less, an employer is free to act as s/he chooses in making hiring decisions. But here, as in most commercial instances, failure to abide by the rule of law [commercial, civil or that of economic principles], e.g., hiring the most qualified individual, comes with a price.


    That's what Kweli told you all-the-way back on page 5. Here you are presenting the same ole tortured line of questioning on this page #11.

    You will note that I spoke to nothing about "someone" owing... As indicated in the CURRENT AMOUNT DUE description, it is not "individuals" who are implicated. Sorry, NO REDUCTIONISM ALLOWED.

    BTW, one of those false PRETENSES that you have to reconcile with your odd questioning is this:

    quote:
    I want white priviledge to be corrected with reparations and not AA or anti-disc.


    It's incumbent upon you to show how White Privilege will be "corrected" when you purposely avoid addressing White Privilege in it's most obvious, historically constructed form.

    That Whites are overrepresented in the position as hirers is a result of a racist history that "gave" them that Privilege. That WHITE Privilege will NOT be unseated when your position is to endorse the same type of imbalance and particularly one forged in America's "MOST" Racist past. What you're saying is that that past has no bearing or consequence on the present. That doesn't hold up logically or mathematically. You've presented nothing that will "correct" the imbalance in that Historical Equation.

    But, of course, we already knew you were here to lend your support for continued White Supremacy and White Privilege.


    ___________________________________________________________________________________
    I'll just borrow this straight from P6:

    quote:
    No one wants you to pay reparations. No one has ever asked you to pay reparations and no one ever will.

    It ain't personal. The debt owed to Black Americans isn't owed by you, or your ancestors, even if they were slave owners. It is owed by the United States of America and the states that created the more detailed repressions like literacy tests for voting when you provide unequal education.

    I understand the argument that reparations made (and I'm using the word "made" rather than "paid" because I'm not looking for cash unless the right thing is rejected) by the government are ultimately made by the citizens of the nation. But if you buy shares of General Motors, you acquire its liabilities as well as its assets. Citizenship is much the same...if the government isn't doing the right thing then you are responsible for taking action somehow, even if its just voting the bastards out.

    The next argument I anticipate is that being born here leaves one no choice but to be a citizen. I read that as "I didn't ask for these benefits, so why should I have to take the liabilities?" which is much like asking "I didn't make the sun shine on my face so why should the back of my head be in shadow?" It's a package. SOMEone will shoulder those liabilities and so far it's been us. All I ask is a fair distribution.

    Another argument questions why should an immigrant bear the liabilities created before their arrival. To this, I refer back to the corporate example.

    See, this reparations discussion doesn't take place in isolation, as its opponents would like. I don't need to build a case for shared liability strictly within the confines of the discussion of the ethics of reparations. In the ethical discussion, I need to build a case for the rightness of reversing the effects of oppression.

    Then YOU have to tell me why it's wrong to reverse thoses effects.


    So, as for the curious question about "someONE" owing... again, it's not about individuals. But you can take that up with every bit of American History prior to Reparations (i.e. still on-going) and Affirmative Action.

    Explain "WHY?" more than just mere individuals who were slave-owners and indentifiably "racist" aided in perpetrating and perpetuating the things that brought ideas like AA and Reparations into being.

    That will answer your question. American Society as a whole participated in the subjugation of Black folks so, likewise, the society as a whole is required to participate in CORRECTING that situation and the imbalance of benefits it afforded Whites, e.g.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    In hiring, to compensate for the illegal discriminatory behavior of white men who would, without the law, hire without regard to qualifications and only put other white men in jobs.


    Well, that question was for Ricardo, but if he agrees with your definition, the follow-up questions shall be this:

    If reparations for past harm done don't have anything to do with AA, why should there be AA at all? In other words, why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?


    I don't know, Zues. If reparations has nothing to do with traffic laws, why should we have traffic laws at all? In other words, why should there be any limit on how fast you drive?

    Roll Eyes
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    I don't know, Zues. If reparations has nothing to do with traffic laws, why should we have traffic laws at all? In other words, why should there be any limit on how fast you drive?

    Roll Eyes


    Because you can kill someone.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    I'll just borrow this straight from P6:


    Page six where? Who said this?


    I said nothing about a Page 6.
    And "who?" = P6

    Not-so-clever EVASIONS won't help you.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    I said nothing about a Page 6.
    And "who?" = P6

    Not-so-clever EVASIONS won't help you.


    You're killing me...

    OK, thnx.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

    You're killing me...

    OK, thnx.


    No. You're killing yourself. You keep stabbing yourself everytime you don't address the substance of info. presented.

    Not only did you NOT address what was presented in the post which started "And your asinine, DECONTEXTUALIZED question has been addressed" but, instead of addressing the substance of the following post, you wanted to divert the issue away from discussing substance to debating the location and author of the comments.

    GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND. Key phrase: "reparations discussion doesn't take place in isolation"


    See what you get then come back with another Romper Room tactic.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    I don't know, Zues. If reparations has nothing to do with traffic laws, why should we have traffic laws at all? In other words, why should there be any limit on how fast you drive?

    Roll Eyes


    Because you can kill someone.


    Well, if you are going to ask absurd questions like "why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?", I suppose that I should ask you why it should be illegal to kill somebody.

    Roll Eyes
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    Well, if you are going to ask absurd questions like "why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?", I suppose that I should ask you why it should be illegal to kill somebody.

    Roll Eyes


    Because people decided that they are better off if they agree not to kill each other and to collectively punish those who do. The benefit comes from not having to spend a lot of your time defending yourself. A few people from the community spend all their time enforcing order. Most people can then spend all their time doing something productive. The end result, as I said, is a better life for all involved.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

    Because people decided that they are better off if they agree not to kill each other and to collectively punish those who do.



    Houston! We have a DISCONNECT!!


    As Reposted on July 17, 2006 08:40 PM:
    "...in these United States THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, through its anti-discrimination laws, has clearly and specifically designated the basing of a non-hiring decision on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability status or age, as prohibited conduct."


    If the standard is "What The People Decide" in terms of what makes them feel "BETTER OFF" then what is your issue? (Besides one confused (i.e. your misdirected focus) and convoluted personal one?)


    ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    In hiring, to compensate for the illegal discriminatory behavior of white men who would, without the law, hire without regard to qualifications and only put other white men in jobs.


    Well, that question was for Ricardo, but if he agrees with your definition, the follow-up questions shall be this:

    If reparations for past harm done don't have anything to do with AA, why should there be AA at all? In other words, why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?


    I don't know, Zues. If reparations has nothing to do with traffic laws, why should we have traffic laws at all? In other words, why should there be any limit on how fast you drive?

    Roll Eyes


    Well, if you do exceed the speed limit, you probobly shouldn't take a photo of your speedometer and post it on the internet...

    quote:

    Hey! Who turned me in?


    Tue Jul 18, 9:11 AM ET



    ZAGREB (Reuters) - A young Croat who posted a photograph of himself speeding on a motorbike on the Web was tracked down and fined by the police, the Jutarnji List daily reported Tuesday.

    The 28-year-old, identified only as D.M., took a photo of his speedometer showing 170 km (100 mph) on a back road in northern Croatia and then put it on the Web site of his local municipality.

    Police found him three days later.

    "He was trying to be a hot shot. Guys like this may not know that the police scan the Internet. This is a warning to them not to play games on the road and threaten their own and others people's lives," the daily quoted police as saying.

    In addition to the speeding ticket, the police also discovered the motorcycle had been illegally imported from neighboring Slovenia and was not registered -- likely leading to another hefty fine, the daily said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060718/od_nm/croatia_fine_...NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
    quote:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    I don't know, Zues. If reparations has nothing to do with traffic laws, why should we have traffic laws at all? In other words, why should there be any limit on how fast you drive?




    Because you can kill someone.


    quote:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

    Because people decided that they are better off if they agree not to kill each other and to collectively punish those who do.



    Houston! We have a DISCONNECT!!


    As Reposted on July 17, 2006 08:40 PM:
    "...in these United States THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, through its anti-discrimination laws, has clearly and specifically designated the basing of a non-hiring decision on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability status or age, as prohibited conduct."


    Damn Nmaginate and RicardoMath ...

    I take one day off and ya'll pull together posts to demonstrate how full of sh!t Zeus is. He claims to want to end white priviledge and to build a "color-blind" egalitarian society; but refuses to acknowledge that the only rules/laws/social contracts that he is willing to surrender are those that are intended to balance the playing field, i.e., end white priviledge.

    Traffic laws=Good ... Because they may protect him; but Anti-discrimination/AA laws=Bad ... because they may benefit someone other than him. bs bs bs
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    Traffic laws=Good ... Because they may protect him; but Anti-discrimination/AA laws=Bad ... because they may benefit someone other than him. bs bs bs



    tfrolaugh
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Houston! We have a DISCONNECT!!


    As Reposted on July 17, 2006 08:40 PM:
    "...in these United States THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, through its anti-discrimination laws, has clearly and specifically designated the basing of a non-hiring decision on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability status or age, as prohibited conduct."


    If the standard is "What The People Decide" in terms of what makes them feel "BETTER OFF" then what is your issue? (Besides one confused (i.e. your misdirected focus) and convoluted personal one?)

    ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___


    I'm not disputing that the people decided on AA, I just want them to go over their reasoning, if AA is not related in any way to reparations.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:

    Well, if you do exceed the speed limit, you probobly shouldn't take a photo of your speedometer and post it on the internet...


    Yeah.... probably not...

    Again,
    "Originally posted by MBM:
    In hiring, to compensate for the illegal discriminatory behavior of white men who would, without the law, hire without regard to qualifications and only put other white men in jobs. "

    Well, that question was for Ricardo, but if he agrees with your definition, the follow-up questions shall be this:

    If reparations for past harm done don't have anything to do with AA, why should there be AA at all? In other words, why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    Damn Nmaginate and RicardoMath ...

    I take one day off and ya'll pull together posts to demonstrate how full of sh!t Zeus is. He claims to want to end white priviledge and to build a "color-blind" egalitarian society;


    I don't think I ever claimed to build an egalitarian society.

    quote:
    but refuses to acknowledge that the only rules/laws/social contracts that he is willing to surrender are those that are intended to balance the playing field, i.e., end white priviledge.

    Traffic laws=Good ... Because they may protect him; but Anti-discrimination/AA laws=Bad ... because they may benefit someone other than him. bs bs bs


    How would laws to make reparations benefit me?
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    Well, if you are going to ask absurd questions like "why should it be illegal for white men to only hire white men if they so chose?", I suppose that I should ask you why it should be illegal to kill somebody.

    Roll Eyes


    Because people decided that they are better off if they agree not to kill each other and to collectively punish those who do. The benefit comes from not having to spend a lot of your time defending yourself. A few people from the community spend all their time enforcing order. Most people can then spend all their time doing something productive. The end result, as I said, is a better life for all involved.


    Not better for us leadfoots. We've already decided that we are willing to take the risk of driving fast. It's only better for you slowpokes, who are scared of us smashing into you.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

    I don't think I ever claimed to build an egalitarian society.



    More proof that YOU ARE NOT READY! But just go ahead an OBFUSCATE with your bad self. LOL! Big Grin


    quote:
    Originally posted by virtue:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    I don't want to antagonize anyone in this thread.

    I just want people's opinions...


    I'm not trying to antagonize you ....
    but could you please fulfill this list for me?

    I want to know what your opinion of current race relations are in the U.S. and if you see white folks as the cause of any antagonism between the two?

    - If so, what are you going to do about it?
    - If not, why are you here?

    ...I just want you to give me a specific list of atrocities committed against Black folk and where white folk fit in and [b]what you are going to offer to make it right.


    K?


    It was IN THAT CONTEXT you responded to EP's question saying something that complicates if not CONTRADICTS this idea about "egalitarian" ideas...

    quote:
    Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
    The only thing that I can do about anything is to vote libertarian. Other than that, I don't know.


    So.........what's voting Libertarian going to do? What plans do they have for the Black Community?

    quote:
    Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

    Short answer, colorblind society.



    The clause "TO MAKE IT RIGHT" implicates such things as "egalitarianism" by any objective measure. You pretended as if what you said would do that or at least attempt to accomplish that, if your response was ever made in earnest.
    Last edited {1}
    yeah

    So Zeus ... If you don't seek an egalitarian [color-blind] society, what's all this hooey you claim about wanting to end white priviledge?

    It's hard to maintain insincere fronts in the face of printed speech ... ain't it?

    But now that the cat's out the bag, I guess your previous [mis]statement about me vowing not to talk with you was ultimately true.

    Write what you will ... I'm done with you. {And it is my sincere hope that others will follow suit.}
    Since this thread seems to have developed a life of its own, I thought I would inject THE dominant book on 'race relations' on the market TODAY.

    It examines and reveals America and the IDEA of race relations

    'The Education of Booker T. Washington', by Michael Rudolph West.

    I recommend it to all people of African ancestry.

    It won't make a difference in the minds of Europeans.

    But who care?

    PEACE

    Jim Chester
    FYI I just got back from a 2-week vacation. I had no access to the internet and I was too busy to post before leaving.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    Not better for us leadfoots. We've already decided that we are willing to take the risk of driving fast. It's only better for you slowpokes, who are scared of us smashing into you.


    Either you agree to not kill others or you don't.

    I explained to you why it's not a good idea for you to kill others. Is there something in my explanation that you don't agree with?

    Can you explain why people should be forced to hire someone?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    The clause "TO MAKE IT RIGHT" implicates such things as "egalitarianism" by any objective measure. You pretended as if what you said would do that or at least attempt to accomplish that, if your response was ever made in earnest.


    "right" and "wrong" are not objective. "making things right" means something different for each person. I don't think it's possible to please everyone.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    yeah

    So Zeus ... If you don't seek an egalitarian [color-blind] society,


    egalitarian and color-blind are not the same thing

    quote:
    what's all this hooey you claim about wanting to end white priviledge?


    No one even defined what white priviledge is exactly.

    I'm against people using force against each other. That means I'm against slavery and against affirmitive action. If "white priviledge" involves using force against someone, then it's bad.
    quote:
    No one even defined what white priviledge is exactly.


    This may help as a starting point for understanding white priviledge, not that I've read the references provided by Black Viking [I think it was].

    quote:
    By Tim Wise

    If you're looking to understand why discussions between blacks and whites about racism are often so difficult in this country, you need only know this: when the subject is race and racism, whites and blacks are often not talking about the same thing.

    To white folks, racism is seen mostly as individual and interpersonal--as with the uttering of a prejudicial remark or bigoted slur.

    For blacks, it is that too, but typically more: namely, it is the pattern and practice of policies and social institutions, which have the effect of perpetuating deeply embedded structural inequalities between people on the basis of race.

    To blacks, and most folks of color, racism is systemic.

    To whites, it is purely personal.

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×