No, you responded with illogical distortions of my statements, non sequiturs, argumentem ad hominem, and now the usual JREF tactic that intolerant trolls like JJ adopt, of insisting that I 'debate' things I had never posited.
Nooooooo .... let's look at in detail what made you run like a frightened rabbit, screeching insults as you headed for cover:
"Not everything that is ethical is painless, or fair, nor will it make everyone happy."
Because that is true doesn't mean anything that is painful or unfair is ethical - it can be unethical too, as is "diversity". It's quite illogical to justify creating NEW unfairness because some unfairness exists in the world - we aspire to decrease the unfairness - for everybody.
You appeared to be implying that sometimes good changes bring about temporary pain, I pointed out that bad things cause pain, that because "diversity" bears a specious resemblance to the former, that that doesn't necessarily mean it IS one of those good things. Now, how is that a trollerism? Intolerant? It's nothing but normal debate!
"Attempting to address old inequities by tilting the playing field has, as shown, the potential to cause friction between different minorities...but leaving things exactly as they are and waiting for a more ethical system to evolve on its own is likely to take until the next Ice Age..."
A false dichotomy - the choice shouldn't be (and isn't) between old discrimination and new discrimination, but the third, correct choice of enforcing the existing law that is in fact in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause, but just ignored by the liberal/left judiciary.
Responding to your sarcastic tone about an "ice age", I calmly pointed out to you that a different approach may be neither of "ice age" duration nor "diversity". I quoted you a statute and part of the constitution in support of my claim. Is this your "forgery"? "Catch phrases"? Honestly, I have no idea how you could give such a strange response to what is, again, normal debate.
The inertia inherent in the relationsip between superordinates and subordinates is substantial, and just waving a Constitutional Amendment around and chanting 'everybody is equal' won't get it.
"just waving a Constitutional Amendment"??? Do you have the slightest grasp of the constitution?? The constitution is not something that is just "waved around" but that which seperates us from dictatorships and banana republics - places like saddam's Iraq! "Inertia"?? That sounds vague. People can and do sue for discrimination and win. Implementing anti-white discrimination policies to overcome supposed "inertia" (whatever that is) can't be view as ethical, constitutional, or rational. It's like there is a hole in your yard, and you "solve" it by digging another hole to fill up the first one.
Once again, you adopt a sarcastic tone showing great disrespect for the fundamental law of the land, the constitution, while giving a false summary of my arguments. I point out to you that taking one persons rights to supposedly give them to another makes no sense - go look at the phraseology of the bill of rights and other amendments -- they are all couched in language indicating they are universal. I carefully point this out to you, giving you an analogy to help you understand. Is that your "ad hominem"?? More trollery? Again what the devil are you talking about???
"Without a system along the lines of AA, how long do weu think it would have taken for there to be minority alumni at Harvard, so that their children could start to enjoy the perks of being a 'legacy'? Some of the vestiges of the old system had to be dismanteld, and unfortunatley it got 'fixed' in a clumsy and imperfect manner.
This is a standard red herring "AA" advocates like to bring up. The perhaps few thousands of students who benefit by such systems are vastly, overwhelmingly outnumbered by the millions of minority students who get a free boost for having the "correct" skin color - essentially every minority who applies. Leave alone the issue that the latter is based on racial discrimination, not the former.
You bring up a standard invalid argument used by "diversity" supporters, which attempts to balance a few privileged white legacies against millions of hyper-privileged minorities. It needs nothing more than stating the facts to expose this argument as invalid. If you're not convinced (and one wonders why you wouldn't be) then don't be convinced, but what does this have to do with your list of insults? I'm beginning to recognize this "troll" stuff for what it is -- the last fallback position of someone who is losing a debate, and feels compelled to yell insults as he runs away from the debating hall.
