One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

[JAR]

Genghis
What would you do about a company with approx 500 employees in an area where the population is 30% black that has 0% black employees?

You don't like AA, I don't like AA, but what are the alternatives? Just do nothing? Allow racist employers to continue unchecked? What would you do about my fictitious company? It is this exact sort of situation that has seen AA come about.... What alternatives can you suggest?

Fool, when employers of a place can afford to hire workers on a racial basis, that means that the place is over-populated and its time for those who aren't employed to move elsewhere.

 

[JAR]

One problem with you affirmative action lovers is you think that ethnic groups should be evenly proportioned among different jobs in relation to their percentage of the population. Haven't you ever noticed that different ethnic groups gravitate towards certain jobs depending on the environment they were raised in and their genes(example: being beautiful helps one be a supermodel). You remind me of those people who think something should be done about the large number of Jewish people working in show business.

 

[hammegk]

Again. Do you say then that this is a genetic situation that cannot be fixed by social engineering? Are you saying that blacks are simply racially inferior for modern society and cannot be helped and are simply doomed to be the lowest class of American society no matter what?

After nearly 5 decades of social engineering, the result still stands: the IQ you are born with IS your adult IQ. What do you suggest? My solution again, "1 bastard, automatic sterilization". If daddy can be identified ditto for him.

There are only two things that determine development, genetics and environment.

So true. Damn, I wish stats existed for mixed-race kids. The mongoloid/caucasoid higher-IQ-propensity -- strictly anecdotally -- seems to be the dominant gene-set in negroid-mix offspring.

Genetics cannot be changed (well , sort of), but environment can be. Are you against changing the black environment in ways that are thought to improve their social situation?

Yes, but my solution is admittedly racist, since blacks would be unfairly represented.

What is your recommendation then, knowing that people are a product of their environment, to help blacks improce their socioeconmic status in America, which was, aferall created through the process of slavery and oppression after slavery, which didn't really begin to stop until the 1960s.

As long as well-meaning people continue to parrot this bs, the road to salvation seems to depend on intermarriage.

For jj & his ilk: How do you classify pre-natal care based on crack intake? Genetics, or Environment?

 

[kerfer]

kerfer

You confirmed my suspicions.

Likewise. I try to do you a favor, and show you how absurd your argument is, and instead of rethinking it and proposing the ability to converse, you resort to name calling.

How mature of you.

Your argument is fallacious, and I'm not interested in pursuing that line of "reasoning" any longer. I'm not going to argue with a fool.

I notice that you are trying very hard to avoid my main point: that AA is racist, and racism is always wrong.

If you disagree with that statement, please tell me when, besides AA, of course, that racism is not wrong.

Here:

Malachi151 thinks that racism is not wrong in the following situations:

1)

2)

3)

 

[jj]

For jj & his ilk: How do you classify pre-natal care based on crack intake? Genetics, or Environment?

At least environment, and possibly genetics for people who are very sensitive to any particular substance.

Also, massive parental effective stupidity. Note, this does not mean "low IQ" it means a lack of what we usually call "wisdom" in this case. I've known people with a measured, low IQ who can be fairly wise, although nothing like speedy.

I've known people who were tactical wizards, but hadn't a touch of wisdom.

A question for Hammegk and his ilk: Is IQ one thing? If yes, prove.

 

[bpesta22]

A question for Hammegk and his ilk: Is IQ one thing? If yes, prove.

JJ

I'm honored to be an ilk of Hammegk's.

Actually, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming intelligence is more than one thing.

The positive manifold is a near law (give a battery of vastly different cognitive abilities test to a bunch of people, and a significant positive correlation will emerge among the tests).

To my knowledge, no one has ever done a factor analysis on a battery of tests where the single factor, g, has NOT emerged and sucked up most of the variance in test scores.

Add to that the fact that if the "IQ" test doesn't measure g then its validity crashes-- the test no longer correlates with SES, education, job performance, etc.

It's fine and dandy to claim there are 7, 10 or 12 types of intelligence, but no one's ever designed a test that taps a specific other type of intelligence, but that does not also measure g.

Plus, there's even physiological evidence for IQ being one thing, as g correlates with neural speed and very basic RT measures like the light bulb task (mentioned in a prior thread).

I think you could categorize cognition into various branches (math, verbal, spatial, etc) but you always have g on the top explaining the biggest chunk of the variance in individual differences on these branches.

 

[JAR]

After nearly 5 decades of social engineering, the result still stands: the IQ you are born with IS your adult IQ. What do you suggest? My solution again, "1 bastard, automatic sterilization". If daddy can be identified ditto for him.
[snip]

Are you talking about eugenics?

 

[BillyTK]

One problem with you affirmative action lovers is you think that ethnic groups should be evenly proportioned among different jobs in relation to their percentage of the population.

Strawman to the point of sileage.

Haven't you ever noticed that different ethnic groups gravitate towards certain jobs depending on the environment they were raised in and their genes(example: being beautiful helps one be a supermodel).

Are you claiming that beauty is an ethnicity?

You remind me of those people who think something should be done about the large number of Jewish people working in show business.

 

[BillyTK]

JJ

I'm honored to be an ilk of Hammegk's.

You might be doing yourself a disservice here...

Actually, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming intelligence is more than one thing.

How would you adapt Ravens (for instance,) for blind people? Could you adapt the verbal element of other tests for people with dyslexia?

The positive manifold is a near law (give a battery of vastly different cognitive abilities test to a bunch of people, and a significant positive correlation will emerge among the tests).

But only latitudinally, not longitudinally...

To my knowledge, no one has ever done a factor analysis on a battery of tests where the single factor, g, has NOT emerged and sucked up most of the variance in test scores.

Apart from the generational factor...

Add to that the fact that if the "IQ" test doesn't measure g then its validity crashes-- the test no longer correlates with SES, education, job performance, etc.

But that's circular logic--IQ tests measure g; g exists because IQ tests measure it.

It's fine and dandy to claim there are 7, 10 or 12 types of intelligence, but no one's ever designed a test that taps a specific other type of intelligence, but that does not also measure g.

How about, there's only one kind of intelligence--g--but it's the sum of a range of sensory and cognitive abilities?

Plus, there's even physiological evidence for IQ being one thing, as g correlates with neural speed and very basic RT measures like the light bulb task (mentioned in a prior thread).

But of course g correlates with neural speed! Just as fast-twitch muscle correlates with sprinting and jumping ability; we could term this ability "a", and be pretty certain that individuals with high "a" will do well at jumping and sprinting events; but could we actually say that "a" exists, other than as the collective term for a specific set of skills it measures?

I think you could categorize cognition into various branches (math, verbal, spatial, etc) but you always have g on the top explaining the biggest chunk of the variance in individual differences on these branches.

How would that work? Would g predict maths ability or vice versa?

 

[JAR]

[snip]
Are you claiming that beauty is an ethnicity?
[snip]

No, but DNA does play a role in how beautiful a person is and DNA is one way for classifying ethnic groups although it doesn't make up the majority of a person's ethnic characteristics according to what I learned in my Introduction to Anthropology college class.

 

[BillyTK]

No, but DNA does play a role in how beautiful a person is and DNA is one way for classifying ethnic groups although it doesn't make up the majority of a person's ethnic characteristics according to what I learned in my Introduction to Anthropology college class.

Okay... *deep breath* ethnicity is cultural; it's made up of lots of different things like language, religion, customs, and these are nothing to do with dna. You can't tell the difference between, say, a member of the Amish community and an Irish roman catholic at the genetic level, although there's very distinctive cultural differences.

DNA does play a role in beauty, in terms of the grand lottery of physical features you inherit, but so does the environment; look at how ideals of beauty have changed over the last five decades--from the "curvaceousness" of Marilyn Munroe to the skinny look of catwalk models from the sixties onwards; look at the ways people can enhance their looks with everything from dentistry through to cosmetic surgery.

There's beautiful people from all ethnicities, and every ethinicity has a different idea of beauty anyway. Just compare the "look" of women in Bollywood movies with women in Hollywood movies.

Bottom line: beauty is cultural, not genetic, because it's a case of characteristics you've inherited fitting in with current ideals of beauty, and those ideals are constantly changing.

 

[Malachi151]

Likewise. I try to do you a favor, and show you how absurd your argument is, and instead of rethinking it and proposing the ability to converse, you resort to name calling.

How mature of you.

Your argument is fallacious, and I'm not interested in pursuing that line of "reasoning" any longer. I'm not going to argue with a fool.

I notice that you are trying very hard to avoid my main point: that AA is racist, and racism is always wrong.

If you disagree with that statement, please tell me when, besides AA, of course, that racism is not wrong.

Here:

Malachi151 thinks that racism is not wrong in the following situations:

1)

2)

3)

You can't explain how absurd something is unless you understand it. Your arguments showed that you didn't even understand the analogy.

AA is not racist. That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

The fact is that if you have a large group in poverty, it does not matter who that group is, then in a capitalst economic system the only way for that group to ever get out of poverty is through the use of assistance.

Given that blacks were all forced into poverty against their will, and that they have descriminated against significantly since their freedom from slavery, and that when AA ws put into effect the vast majority of blacks were still in poverty, the one and ony way to gt them out of that situtation as a group is through help, assistance, giving them advantages.

I am quite sure that if Japan were to enslave 10 million white people for about 200 years in Japan and totally remove all traces of their culture from the population and prevent them from even learning to read, and then release them from slavery as free, but the poorest group in society and then continue to descriminate against them, not hire them for jobs, and run them out of business and force them to use separate facilities, etc, that whites would do no better in that situation as a group that blacks are doing here.

Its not a matter of race, its a matter of culture, but in this case race and culture are tied together. It is simply easier to make laws based on race since virtually everyone from a given race was thrust into the same culture.

People naturally descriminate based on race. Our society is, and had been, dominated by white males who also descriminate based on race and gender to give preference to other white males. Without passing some laws countrer act this natural tendancy it would be expected that white males would forever domnate the US social and economic system, not based on merit, but based on social practise and the self reinforcing mechanisms that cause disadvantaged populations to become weakers and weaker as people respond to their environment.

Generally, a bad environment will produce "bad people", and a good environment will produce "good people". So, if whites, who have traditionally dominated the good environments of America, do not help people out of their bad environments it is not reasonsable to expect that they will help themselves because the peoplare a product of their environment. Its not reasonable to expect that 1 or 2 generatios of help will do it either, it will take many generations of assistance. It is also not reasonable to expect the blacks to do all the catching up on their own.

Blacks have been slaves in America for about 400 years, it is not reasonable to expect to reverse the social damage done to that population in 40 years of assistance.

 

[Dancing David]

I think that the problem I have is that IQ is an a priori test, it would be more scientific to do a longitudinal study. Administer a battery of tests over time and find out which tests have the highest correlates to various skills, then you could begin to develop a scientificaly based test.

The five teen point difference, typical faulty meta-analysis:
- to have an accurate scientific doeuble blind you must match the factors that could lead to the test having an error in it.
-match factors like nutrition
-match enviromental factors like lead
-match enviromental factors like parental involvement
-match all factors that might possible be something other than genetics.
Then if you still have the fivetenn point difference I will concede the genetic basis of the fiveteen point difference.
(Sorry but that is good social scince, and by the way you need test groups in the 100,00 range to even pretend that you have a good sample)

The crach baby thing: cocaine is very addictive, socio-bio-psycho factors lead to addiction. Match the socio economics and viola the rates are the same, of course higher socio economic class allows you to hide your addiction better.

Hey what was this thread about?

 

[hammegk]

.....massive parental effective stupidity. Note, this does not mean "low IQ" it means a lack of what we usually call "wisdom" in this case. I've known people with a measured, low IQ who can be fairly wise, although nothing like speedy.

I've known people who were tactical wizards, but hadn't a touch of wisdom.

Nothing like a good anecdote when you have no facts. Unless you would care to deny any correlation of iq to parental stupidity (ie. Genetics).

A question for Hammegk and his ilk: Is IQ one thing? If yes, prove.

When will you publish your rebuttal to Spearman's work? Many have tried, none I've seen succeded except in their own minds, and in the minds of equally deluded soft-headed pb'lib fellow travelers. jj, meet TK & 151. Maybe a circle jerk while you tell each other how smart you are, and how dumb I am?

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
AA is not racist.

That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

If anything, claiming AA is not racist is just a lame excuse for its proponents to rationalize their support for a racist policy.

 

[kerfer]

You can't explain how absurd something is unless you understand it. Your arguments showed that you didn't even understand the analogy.

ROTFLMAO!

I understood it, I just thought it was stupid.

AA is not racist.

You have got to be kidding.

from dictionary.com

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Please explain how a policy that is defined as discrimination based solely upon race is not a racist policy.

That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

ROTFLMAO!

So let me get this straight...I oppose discrimination based on race, and you support dicrimination based solely on race, and I'm the racist?

Hehehehehehehehehehe

Hohohohohohhohohohoohhoho

Hawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhaw

heheheheheheheehhehehhehehehehehehe

hehehhhehehehehhhehehhhehhhhhhhhehh

hehehehehehehehehhhehehehehehehehe

That's a good one. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

The fact is that if you have a large group in poverty, it does not matter who that group is, then in a capitalst economic system the only way for that group to ever get out of poverty is through the use of assistance.

Given that blacks were all forced into poverty against their will, and that they have descriminated against significantly since their freedom from slavery, and that when AA ws put into effect the vast majority of blacks were still in poverty, the one and ony way to gt them out of that situtation as a group is through help, assistance, giving them advantages.

I am quite sure that if Japan were to enslave 10 million white people for about 200 years in Japan and totally remove all traces of their culture from the population and prevent them from even learning to read, and then release them from slavery as free, but the poorest group in society and then continue to descriminate against them, not hire them for jobs, and run them out of business and force them to use separate facilities, etc, that whites would do no better in that situation as a group that blacks are doing here.

Its not a matter of race, its a matter of culture,

Bovine biscuits.

I have never once seen on a form in the race portion, an entry for White Hillbilly. It's about race. You know it is.

but in this case race and culture are tied together. It is simply easier to make laws based on race since virtually everyone from a given race was thrust into the same culture.

You can admit that you are wrong any time you'd like.

Or you can keep spewing this sillyness.

AA is racist, and racism is wrong.

 

[c0rbin]

If anything, claiming AA is not racist is just a lame excuse for its proponents to rationalize their support for a racist policy.

AA pertains to race. That is obvious.

That it harms white males in general is not.

 

[Malachi151]

Check it out:

http://betboards.bet.com/showflat.p...=833552&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Going to Harvard Law - How do I face the criticism

I'm a black man from New York who was recently accepted at Harvard Law School, one of the top in the country. While my GPA and LSAT scores were not as high as the rest of the class, I did very well and have had a lot of hard experiences to overcome. I keep hearing about the stigma of being black and having not "earned" my place in the field of law, having been accepted to Harvard!!! I didn't feel this at Georgetown, but I'm worried there might be more resentment now that I'm going to Harvard. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to confront this issue.

I'm guessing that this might actually be a troll, btu the replies are interesting.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
AA is not racist. That's just a lame excuse by people who are racist to try and oppose AA.

Originally posted by WMT1
If anything, claiming AA is not racist is just a lame excuse for its proponents to rationalize their support for a racist policy.

Originally posted by c0rbin
AA pertains to race. That is obvious.

Then you agree that it is racist?

That it harms white males in general is not.

How is this relevant to anything I posted?

 

[Tmy]

Going to Harvard Law - How do I face the criticism

I'm a black man from New York who was recently accepted at Harvard Law School, one of the top in the country. While my GPA and LSAT scores were not as high as the rest of the class, I did very well and have had a lot of hard experiences to overcome. I keep hearing about the stigma of being black and having not "earned" my place in the field of law, having been accepted to Harvard!!! I didn't feel this at Georgetown, but I'm worried there might be more resentment now that I'm going to Harvard. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to confront this issue.


Heres what Id tell this guy "who gives an f- what people think". Ive heard Harvard Law is a terrible place. Everyones out to get each other and the competition gets silly.

AA just helps you with getting in. It doesnt make your tests any easier. If all these people truely dont belong, then wouldnt they all fail out?