One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

[c0rbin]

AA is not racist because if you look at the wording of the anit-descrimination laws that surround it, they say you may not use race et al as a consideration. Hence it pertains to race. To call that racism is like calling anti-child porn laws kiddie porn because it contains the words "minors" and "genitalia."

How is this relevant to anything I posted?

I think it's very relevant. AA is a policy designed to give everyone a fair shot. White males have the most opportunity stocked up and are not damaged, IMO, by AA.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by c0rbin
AA is not racist because if you look at the wording of the anit-descrimination laws that surround it, they say you may not use race et al as a consideration. Hence it pertains to race.

Feel free to provide a quote if you like, but I didn't ask about the "laws that surround it" anyway. Does AA discriminate on the basis of race?

To call that racism is like calling anti-child porn laws kiddie porn because it contains the words "minors" and "genitalia."

If you think that's true, then you should have no trouble providing an unconditional, unambiguous answer to the question I just asked.

That it harms white males in general is not.

How is this relevant to anything I posted?

I think it's very relevant. AA is a policy designed to give everyone a fair shot. White males have the most opportunity stocked up and are not damaged, IMO, by AA.

But I made no particular statements about that. So once again (and please answer the question I'm actually asking this time), how is it relevant to anything I posted?

 

[JAR]

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.

That's what I was taught in school, but my American Heritage College Dictionary definition is different. It defines "ethnicity" as:

n. Ethnic character, background, or affiliation.

It defines "ethnic" as:

adj. 1.a. Of or relating to sizable groups of people with a common, distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. b. Being a member of a particular ethnic group. c. Of, relating to, or distinctive members of such a group. 2. Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish. -n. A member of a particular ethnic group, esp. one with the language or customs of the group.

Note the word "racial" in the definition which I put in bold text.

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.

That's because Amish and Irish are not races. Its been shown repeatedly by studies that just because two people trace their ancestry to the same ethnic group(example: Two people are both German in ancestry) doesn't necessarily mean they have a common ancestor that belonged to that ethnic group. A red haired person with freckles with German ancestry is probably more closely related to a red haired person with freckles with English ancestry than he/she is related to a blond haired person without freckles with German ancestry.

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.

I personally don't find the skinny look attractive but I know lots of guys who do. In my opinion, that cultural influence is a harmful rejection of the way women were intended to be by nature.

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.

What is considered beautiful is influenced by culture. I agree with you there. I also don't think white women are the most attractive women in the world. I like dark skin caucasoidal women best. But that's just my opinion and beauty is just a matter of taste.

 

[Tmy]

Oh no not another semantics fight.

Sure AA is technically "racist". Just like George Bush is technically a "murderer" cause he ordered the bombing of Iraq knowing it would cause death.

 

[Dancing David]

JAR thou art most eloquent, and you called yourself lazy!

I think my point would be that up until WWII most people did think of nationality as equivalent to race.

So alot of the race based feelings were equaly applied to nationalities.

Side comment,

as I have stated in other thread I am disturbed by the fact that if you support AA then there is a support of race,
which is why i feel the socio economic AA is a better model.

The idea to AA is that it will fught institutional bigotry, so maybe some white kids should apply to all black school, eh?

 

[Tmy]

JAR thou art most eloquent, and you called yourself lazy!

I think my point would be that up until WWII most people did think of nationality as equivalent to race.

So alot of the race based feelings were equaly applied to nationalities.

Side comment,

as I have stated in other thread I am disturbed by the fact that if you support AA then there is a support of race,
which is why i feel the socio economic AA is a better model.

The idea to AA is that it will fught institutional bigotry, so maybe some white kids should apply to all black school, eh?

Theres a big myth out there that "black colleges" are just for blacks. In fact many of them are state schools that are "tradtionally black" because they were the only instititions where blacks were allowed. They do have white students too, just as any school.


AS for the socio econmic AA. I dont know. The thought is that if your a hispanic but your from a wealthy rich mostly white town and got to a nice school you are then above instititional bigotry. But wouldnt that one hispanic in a whole school of whites actually face more bigotry than the hispanic kid in the urban hispanic school? Being the only one whatever in a school is going to make the education process difficult.

 

[jj]

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.

Really?

I am quite seriously not aware that IQ or some one other measure has been shown to be all-inclusive. I know you argue for 'g', yes, I do recall this, (see? even the stupid, according to some IQ tests, can remember something, and according to some of the tests, I'm a drooling idiot, so pardon my lack of faith in any given test...) I am still,however, unaware that the proposition that intellegence is ONE thing has been proven.

Until then, the burden is not mine.

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.

Indeed. This is, however, inferring causation from correlation in a very real way.

Now, are there different paths to getting the same 'g'? I don't think you've shown otherwise.

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.

Well, then, would you like to tell us what are good tests? I do agree that tests SHOULD predict, but my experience with many tests (and I've taken many, I was for whatever reason a favorite subject of some of the cognative people back at the Labs) suggests that their results don't always exactly correlate, no matter what they are measuring, and no, I wasn't deliberately confounding the data.

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.

So, a skill in basic math is equal to a skill in, say, convincing rhetoric? Or are people good in one good at the other? That hasn't always been my experience, for sure.

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.

So you're saying that 'g' has predictive value to all branches of reasoning? (note, that's a question) Interesting.

What does this say about outlier types, the kind that get a 2%ile in Iowa "Clerical Skills" and who are off the top in Math, but who wind up with a 95%ile in language on GRE's?

I've met far too many people who were successful and smart who had obvious lacks of one sort or other, and who compensated or didn't in some fairly obvious manner.

I don't think I'm oversimplfying, maybe what I am suggesting is that outliers don't fit the model you're putting up. What do you think of that proposition?

 

[jj]

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).

It would be good of you not to make statements like this. First, what I cite isn't even an anecdote. You didn't ask for proof, you didn't ask for evidence, you asked MY OPINION. That's what you got. Now you're shifting the bar, just like a creationist.

"Oh, that's not what I meant, you didn't prove this other thing I didn't ask for".

That's cheating.

Why?

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?

Ah, yes, when upset with the argument, call them names. I'm overwhelmed with amazement. I'm stunned. I'm overcome.

Until you stop that kind of behavior, you're not worth the bits you spend on language.

 

[Tmy]

I think people can have "talents" in certain arers. Talent in math, music, painting, hand eye coordination. So yes its part of their genetics. But I dont feel its concentrated in a persons race. There are great artists from all races. Great musicians.

But its not all in the genes. Have you heard John Lenons kid? His music sucks! How come we don't hear of the genius of Einstiens kids??

 

[jj]

I think it's very relevant. AA is a policy designed to give everyone a fair shot. White males have the most opportunity stocked up and are not damaged, IMO, by AA.

Actually, Corbin, speaking as a white male from a lower socio-economic background, you know, one of those backgrounds that's due to low IQ according to our friends here, I was in fact harmed by AA. I could have used the same financial aid, the same remedial aid in some areas, etc, but I wasn't black, so I didn't deserve it. I got to compete with all of those people. Now, in fact I do agree that intellegence (whatever it is) will out, some of those people did fine, some did not, I did fine in fact, but had to leap some stupid, deliberately placed barries because I wasn't black. (details are more involved and more annoying than I really care to go into 30 years later, thank you)

So, yes, I can make a case that I was harmed financially by AA, in fact, in a fashion that continues to have effects (both financial and medical) to this day.

The fact that I have overcome most of this does not justify placing the barriers in the first place.

Having said all that, I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

That's my definition of smart, so don't ask. It's subjective. It does seem to have good predictive power, but I do seem to pick people who succeed later in life rather than sooner, but who keep what they make, so to speak.

I'm sure Hammy will have something negative to say. I'm probably going to put him on ignore after his last combination of shifting the bar and then ad-hominem, though. I don't think he's a reasonable person, nor does he argue on the level.

 

[Malachi151]

So you are saying that you think that you started with all the same exact barriers that average blacks start with, and then you had more lumped on top, is that correct?

 

[Tmy]

So jj are you saying that if AA did not exist you wouldve gotten all that aid???? How do you figure?

I thought financial aid was need based. Not color based.

 

[hammegk]

Actually, Corbin, speaking as a white male from a lower socio-economic background, you know, one of those backgrounds that's due to low IQ according to our friends here, I was in fact harmed by AA.

No one has suggested anything at an individual level. Other attributes can enhance, or degrade the effectiveness of measured IQ.

And I am sooooo sorry you suffered such maltreatment. Wahhh.

Having said all that, I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

That's my definition of smart, so don't ask. It's subjective. It does seem to have good predictive power, but I do seem to pick people who succeed later in life rather than sooner, but who keep what they make, so to speak.

Iff AA selection was based on measured IQ, it would have some chance of doing so. As it is now race-based, all we are doing is squandering our tax dollars & teachers time on a no-return effort. Yes, that is my opinion; I still await citation of any studies that demonstrate the obverse.

And more anecdotes demonstrating the fabled jj acumen.

I'm sure Hammy will have something negative to say. I'm probably going to put him on ignore after his last combination of shifting the bar and then ad-hominem, though. I don't think he's a reasonable person, nor does he argue on the level.

I'd be more than happy with that. You are certainly a waste of bandwidth who does not argue, only babble ... plonk, bubby.

 

[jj]

So you are saying that you think that you started with all the same exact barriers that average blacks start with, and then you had more lumped on top, is that correct?

No.

Why the nasty mis-sumation?

 

[jj]

So jj are you saying that if AA did not exist you wouldve gotten all that aid???? How do you figure?

I didn't say that.

I thought financial aid was need based. Not color based.

Read more carefully.

 

[jj]

Iff AA selection was based on measured IQ, it would have some chance of doing so. As it is now race-based, all we are doing is squandering our tax dollars & teachers time on a no-return effort. Yes, that is my opinion; I still await citation of any studies that demonstrate the obverse.

With a proper test, I'd not disagree. I simply don't agree that any test I've seen will be very successful, ESPECIALLY with the outliers, who are, in my opinion, the important ones to catch.

And more anecdotes demonstrating the fabled jj acumen.

More malicious manipulation of the bar. Where did I claim anything for the above other than personal experience?

Hint: I didn't.

I see once again that you can't deal with what people really say, so instead you show infantile, regressive behavior like:


I'd be more than happy with that. You are certainly a waste of bandwidth who does not argue, only babble ... plonk, bubby.

And you complain that I offer no substance.

Hypocrite.

 

[Malachi151]

Why the nasty mis-sumation?

Well, what can we do then to compensate for the obsticals that blacks face?

Also by obsticals I assume that you mean that w/o AA there would be more spots open for whites in whatever program.

If we don't get blacks into established institutions then how do we expext them to just jump up from widespear poverty when they can't make it into the important instutions either my merit or descrimination?

The argument essentially is that , well, maney not many blacks can make it into this school today based on test scores, but if we let them in with lower scores then maybe 2 or 3 generations from now they will be able to make it on their own. And in fact there is evidence that this type of thing does work.

Why don't we just increase spending on education and open more spots? Oh I forgot, we need to spend that on bombs instead.

Well even if we opend more spots people would still complain, in fact this has also happened.

More whites go to college today then 50 years ago too, so how can whites say they are being counted out.

Let's just say that 50 years ago 30% of whites went to college and 2% of blacks went to college.

Now today, schools have grown and today 50% of whites go to college and 30% of blacks.

The whites are still complaining because according to capacity we could have only 2% of black still going to school and about 60% of whites. Well.. I mean WTF?

Also over the past 50 years standards have come down across the boards partly because of AA, so we can also say that without AA standards would be higher across the board so again fewer whites would also get into college even still.

So, lets say a school has to meet AA standards. They currently enroll 10,000 students, 95% white. To meet the new standards they then admit 13,000 students, all 3,000 being black. Then white people say, hey wait, those 3,000 people could have been white!!

I mean come on, its a never ending battle.

Let's go back to the foot race example.

You start out 10 feet ahead of your opponent. The opponent asks to be moved up 10 feet, but then you complain and say that's not fair, if he gets to move up 10 feet then so should you.

Something has to give here if we have the objective of eventual racial equality.

 

[JAR]

[snip]
AS for the socio econmic AA. I dont know. The thought is that if your a hispanic but your from a wealthy rich mostly white town and got to a nice school you are then above instititional bigotry. But wouldnt that one hispanic in a whole school of whites actually face more bigotry than the hispanic kid in the urban hispanic school? Being the only one whatever in a school is going to make the education process difficult.

It probably depends on the area the school is in. I knew an Hispanic dude in high school who once said that he would prefer to go to the Los Alamitos High School(a high school with mostly upper middle class white students) rather than Long Beach Poly High School(the high school we were going to. It mostly has lower class non-white students).

Where I live it is recommendable that you go to a school with mostly white students regardless of your race. Where I live white people are much less likely to get into a fight, to commit a crime, we basically tend not to look for trouble as much as blacks and Mexicans do. We are often nicer to non-white people than we are to fellow white people because we want to avoid giving the impression that were racists at all costs.

To tell you more, its much more common where I live for an African-American or Mexican-American to move to a neighborhood mainly inhabited by white people than it is for a white person to move to a neighborhood mainly inhabited by African-Americans and/or Mexican-Americans. African-Americans and Mexican-Americans are just completely unafraid of white people. The reason why of course is because it is extremely rare that we commit crimes against our fellow human beings.

In areas mainly inhabited by African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, a common feature you see is bars over the windows of houses and businesses. You rarely see this in white neighborhoods. The hostile nature of non-white neighborhoods encourages people to move out of them.

Now, if your a non-white person in the south, maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard of the south, you probably should avoid white people.

 

[jj]

Why the nasty mis-sumation?

Well, what can we do then to compensate for the obsticals that blacks face?

Why the nasty mis-summation? Why focus on Blacks? What about Hispanics?

Answer the question

Also by obsticals I assume that you mean that w/o AA there would be more spots open for whites in whatever program.

You "assume". Don't assume.

If we don't get blacks into established institutions then how do we expext them to just jump up from widespear poverty when they can't make it into the important instutions either my merit or descrimination?

Please explain your insinuation that my last paragraph was insincere?

Your debating tactics at this time are proundly dishonest, and I expect better from you.

The argument essentially is that , well, maney not many blacks can make it into this school today based on test scores, but if we let them in with lower scores then maybe 2 or 3 generations from now they will be able to make it on their own. And in fact there is evidence that this type of thing does work.

What is your evidence that I disagree with most of what you say? Not nits, mind you, but that I disagree with the substance?

Why don't we just increase spending on education and open more spots? Oh I forgot, we need to spend that on bombs instead.

And you are asking me this fallacy of the zero-sum game to what purpose?

Well even if we opend more spots people would still complain, in fact this has also happened.

This is relevant, how?

More whites go to college today then 50 years ago too, so how can whites say they are being counted out.

Again, you fail to respond with substance. Why do you introduce straw men in the absense of information?

Also over the past 50 years standards have come down across the boards partly because of AA, so we can also say that without AA standards would be higher across the board so again fewer whites would also get into college even still.

And the main implication of that is, then?

I mean come on, its a never ending battle.

For you it will be.
Let's go back to the foot race example.

Yes, let's.

You start out 10 feet ahead of your opponent.

Not granted. Illicit assumption. Start over.

The opponent asks to be moved up 10 feet, but then you complain and say that's not fair, if he gets to move up 10 feet then so should you.

Illicitly suborned from an orignal premise that is false. Your question is meaningless. Why is it offered?

Something has to give here if we have the objective of eventual racial equality.

You again insist on the fallacy of the zero-sum game.

Your rabid, disingenous attacks are very annoying, and constitute obvious prejudice on your part.

You owe me an explaination of why:

1) You have the right to ASSUME that you can read my mind and know what I think.
2) You think that based on your illicit ASSUMPTIONS you can lay a whole pile of baggage at my feet.
3) You insinuate that my own words regarding my position on AA are false by laying an anti-AA position at my feet.

Until you can answer those three questions, or apologize for illegitimately raising them, we must needs be at odds.

I remind you of one of the paragraphs in my article: Having said all that, I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.


Now, please explain your rebuttal of: If we don't get blacks into established institutions then how do we expext them to just jump up from widespear poverty when they can't make it into the important instutions either my merit or descrimination?


Please reconcile your implied position with the one I've stated.

 

[Malachi151]

Well, you have failed to support your vague assertions so all I can do is assume, or repeadly ask you to clarify, then reply, taking twice as long to have a discussion.

I'm for AA in modified form, there is need to ensure that we don't lose smart people, because they are so (*&( hard to come by from any background.

In what way are we currently losing intelligent people due to AA?

Why the nasty mis-summation? Why focus on Blacks? What about Hispanics?

AA was initially instituted mainly to help blacks due to the historic conditions which are unique to them in America, it was extended to other "races" becuase it was viewed that they also faced prejudice.

You "assume". Don't assume.

okay, so explain what you mean then. Thats the only logical explanation for your statement that I could think of.

What is your evidence that I disagree with most of what you say? Not nits, mind you, but that I disagree with the substance?

eh?

Again, you fail to respond with substance. Why do you introduce straw men in the absense of information?

No, the claims here, by you and others, are that because of AA white people are not getting into institutions that they should be getting into based on merit. I'm saying that since AA was started most institutions have accepted more whites as well as minorities. If colleges went from accepting 10,000 whites before AA to now only 6,000 because they had to let in minorities which are all below the skill level of the lowest whites then I would see a problem. However, its not that way.

And the main implication of that is, then?

Whatever the implicatiosn are they are nothing to d with whites not getting access to oppertunity.

Not granted. Illicit assumption. Start over.

No, it is granted. The race is not supposed to symbolize you vs a black person, its supposed to symbolize the white race vs the black race.


I think the issue in all this is the classic macro vs micro views, just like in economics. People focus on the mirco view and fail to see the macro view. Yes on an issue of you and black guy X apply to a college, you have a GPA of 2.7 he has a GPA of 2.0 and he get's admited and you don't, that is an unfair situation. Looking at that we see that the more qualified person got screwed.

However, looking at the macro view we see that without that type of activity, and knowing that people are a product of their environment, that the black population will not be able to progress towards a position of eqaulity with whites.